rx ,  <?.  x-l. 


Jffrnrn  tbf  iEtbranj  of 

llrnffSHor  Itenjarntn  Himkittriiigp  HlarftrUi 

Hnnieatheb  htj  him  in 
%  SJibrartj  nf 

Prtttrrtntt  (Tbpnlngiral  §>mtttarg 

__  _ A  _ _ 

AC  8  . G52  1897  1  , 

Gladstone,  W.  E.  1809-1898. 
Later  gleanings 


■ 


jfl 

Is 


w;~. 

LATER  GLEANINGS. 

A  NEW  SERIES  OF 

GLEANINGS  OF  PAST  YEARS. 

0"  ' 

BY  THE  RIGHT  HON. 

W.  E /GLADSTONE. 


THEOLOGICAL  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL. 


NEW  YOEK : 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS, 

153-157,  FIFTH  AVENUE. 

1897. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/latergleaningsneOOglad 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


- KX - 

PAGES 

I.  Dawn  op  Creation  and  of  Worship  ...  1-39 

II.  Proem  to  Genesis  ...  ...  ...  40-76 

III.  ‘Robert  Elsjiere:’  the  Battle  op  Belief...  77-117 

IV.  Ingersoll  on  Christianity  ...  ...  118-158 

V.  The  Elizabethan  Settlement  of  Religion  159-180 

Yl.  Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  Church  of  England  181-218 

VII.  The  Church  under  Henry  VIII.  ...  ...  219-245 

VIII.  Professor  Huxley  and  the  Swine-Miracle  246-279 

IX.  The  Place  of  Heresy  and  Schism  in  the 

Modern  Christian  Church  ...  ...  280-311 

X.  True  and  False  Conceptions  of  the  Atone¬ 
ment  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  312-337 

XI.  The  Lord’s  Day  ...  ...  ...  ...  338-351 

XII.  General  Introduction  to  Sheppard’s  Pic¬ 
torial  Bible  ...  ...  ...  ...  352-403 

XIII.  SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT  ...  ...  404-426 


I. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.* 

1885. t 

Among  recent  works  on  the  origin  and  history  of  reli¬ 
gions  by  distinguished  authors,  a  somewhat  conspicuous 
place  may  be  awarded  to  the  ‘  Prolegomenes  de  l’Histoire 
des  Religions,’  by  Dr.  Reville,  Professor  in  the  College 
of  France,  and  Hibbert  Lecturer  in  1884.  The  volume 
has  been  translated  into  English  by  Mr.  Squire,  and  the 
translation  comes  forth  with  all  the  advantage,  and  it  is 
great,  which  can  be  conferred  by  an  Introduction  from 
the  pen  of  Professor  Max  Muller ;  and  it  appears,  if  I 
may  presume  so  to  speak  of  it,  to  be  characterized, 
among  other  merits,  by  marked  ingenuity  and  acuteness, 
breadth  of  field,  great  felicity  of  phrase,  evident  candour 
of  intention,  and  abundant  courtesy. 

Whether  its  contents  are  properly  placed  as  prolego¬ 
mena  may  at  once  be  questioned ;  for  surely  the  proper 
office  of  prolegomena  is  to  present  preliminaries,  and  not 
results.  Such  is  not,  however,  the  aim  of  this  work. 
It  starts  from  assuming  the  subjective  origin  of  all 


*  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

f  See  the  ‘  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Religions/  by  Dr.  Reville. 
My  references  throughout  are  to  the  translation  by  Mr.  Squire 
(Williams  &  Norgate,  1884). 

I. 


B 


2 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


religions,  which  are  viewed  as  so  many  answers  to  the 
call  of  a  strong  human  appetite  for  that  kind  of  food, 
and  are  examined  as  the  several  varieties  of  one  and  the 
same  species.  The  conclusions  of  opposing  inquirers, 
however,  are  not  left  to  be  confuted  by  a  collection  of 
facts  and  testimonies  drawn  from  historical  investiga¬ 
tion,  but  are  thrust  out  of  the  way  beforehand  in  this 
preface ;  for,  after  all,  prolegomena  can  be  nothing  but 
a  less  homely  phrase  for  a  preface.  These  inquirers  are 
so  many  pretenders,  who  have  obstructed  the  passage  of 
the  rightful  heir  to  his  throne,  and  they  are  to  be  put 
summarily  out  of  the  way,  as  disturbers  of  the  public 
peace.  The  method  pursued  appears  to  be  not  to  allow 
the  facts  and  arguments  to  dispose  of  them,  but  to 
condemn  them  before  the  cause  is  heard.  I  do  not 
know  how  to  reconcile  this  method  with  Dr.  Reville’s 
declaration  that  he  aims  (p.  vi.)  at  proceeding  in  a 
“  strictly  scientific  spirit.”  It  might  be  held  that  such 
a  spirit  required  the  regular  presentation  of  the  evidence 
before  the  delivery  of  the  verdict  upon  it.  In  any  case 
I  venture  to  observe  that  these  are  not  truly  prolego¬ 
mena,  but  epilegomena  to  a  History  of  Religions  not 
yet  placed  before  us. 

The  first  enemy  whom  Dr.  Reville  despatches  is  M. 
de  Bonald,  as  the  champion  of  the  doctrine  that  “  in  the 
very  beginning  of  the  human  race  the  creative  power 
revealed  to  the  first  men  by  supernatural  means  the 
essential  principles  of  religious  truth,”  together  with 
“  language  and  even  the  art  of  writing”  (pp.  35,  36). 

In  passing,  Dr.  Reville  observes  that  “  the  religious 
schools,  which  maintain  the  truth  of  a  primitive  reve¬ 
lation,  are  guided  by  a  very  evident  theological  interest  ” 
{ibid.) ;  the  Protestant,  to  fortify  the  authority  of  the 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


3 


Bible ;  and  the  Roman  Catholic,  to  prop  the  infallibility 
of  the  Church. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  doctrine  of  a  primitive 
revelation  tends  to  fortify  the  authority  of  religion. 
But  is  it  not  equally  true,  and  equally  obvious,  that  the 
denial  of  a  primitive  revelation  tends  to  undermine  it  ? 
and,  if  so,  might  it  not  be  retorted  upon  the  school  of 
Dr.  Reville  that  the  schools  which  deny  a  primitive 
revelation  are  guided  by  a  very  evident  anti-theological 
interest  ? 

Against  this  antagonist  Dr.  Reville  observes,  inter 
alia  (p.  37),  that  an  appeal  to  the  supernatural  is  per  se 
inadmissible ;  that  a  divine  revelation,  containing  the 
sublime  doctrines  of  the  purest  inspiration,  given  to 
man  at  an  age  indefinitely  remote,  and  in  a  state  of 
“  absolute  ignorance,”  is  “  infinitely  hard  ”  to  imagine  ; 
that  it  is  not  favoured  by  analogy ;  and  that  it  con¬ 
tradicts  all  that  we  know  of  prehistoric  man  (p.  40). 
Thus  far  it  might  perhaps  be  contended  in  reply,  (1)  that 
the  preliminary  objection  to  the  supernatural  is  a  pure 
petitio  principii,  and  wholly  repugnant  to  “  scientific 
method  ;  ”  (2)  that  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  revelation 
might  be  indefinitely  graduated,  as  well  as  human  know¬ 
ledge  and  condition ;  (3)  that  it  is  in  no  way  repugnant 
to  analogy,  if  the  greatest  master  of  analogy,  Bishop 
Butler,*  may  be  heard  upon  the  subject ;  and  (4)  that 
our  earliest  information  about  the  races  from  which  we 
are  least  remote,  Aryan,  Semitic,  Accadian,  or  Egyptian, 
offers  no  contradiction  and  no  obstacle  to  the  idea  of 
their  having  received,  or  inherited,  portions  of  some 
knowledge  divinely  revealed.  I  will  take  upon  me  to 


*  ‘Analogy,’  P.  II.  ch.  ii.  §  7. 


4 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


add,  that  they  offer  many  topics  of  support  to  such  a 
supposition. 

But  I  do  not  now  enter  upon  these  topics,  as  I  have 
a  more  immediate  and  defined  concern  with  the  work  of 
Dr.  Reville. 

It  only  came  within  the  last  few  months  to  my  know¬ 
ledge  that,  at  a  period  when  my  cares  and  labours  of  a 
distinct  order  were  much  too  absorbing  to  allow  of  any 
attention  to  archaeological  history,  Dr.  Reville  had  done 
me  the  honour  to  select  me  as  the  representative  of  those 
writers  who  find  warrant  for  the  assertion  of  a  primitive 
revelation  in  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

This  is  a  distinction  which  I  do  not  at  all  deserve  ; 
first,  because  Dr.  Reville  might  have  placed  in  the  field 
champions  much  more  competent  and  learned  *  than 
myself ;  secondly,  because  I  have  never  attempted  to 
give  the  proof  of  such  a  warrant.  I  have  never  written 
cx  professo  on  the  subject  of  it ;  but  it  is  true  that,  in  a 
work  published  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  when  destructive 
criticism  was  less  advanced  than  it  now  is,  I  assumed  it 
as  a  thing  generally  received,  at  least  in  this  country. 
Upon  some  of  the  points,  which  group  themselves  round 
that  assumption,  my  views,  like  those  of  many  other 
inquirers,  have  been  stated  more  crudely  at  an  early, 
and  more  maturely  at  more  than  one  later  period.  I 
admit  that  variation  or  development  imposes  a  hardship 
upon  critics,  notwithstanding  all  their  desire  to  be  just ; 
especially,  may  I  say,  upon  such  critics  as,  traversing 
ground  of  almost  boundless  extent,  can  hardly,  except 
in  the  rarest  cases,  be  minutely  and  closely  acquainted 
with  every  portion  of  it. 

*  I  will  only  name  one  of  the  most  recent,  Dr.  Reusch,  the  author 
of  ‘  Bibel  und  Natur’  (Bonn,  1876). 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


I  also  admit  to  Dr.  Reville,  and  indeed  I  contend  by 
his  side,  that  in  an  historical  inquiry  the  mere  authority 
of  Scripture  cannot  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the  existence 
of  a  primitive  revelation.  So  to  allege  it  is  a  preliminary 
assumption  of  the  supernatural,  and  is  in  my  view  a 
manifest  departure  from  the  laws  of  “  scientific  ”  pro¬ 
cedure  :  as  palpable  a  departure,  may  I  venture  to  say  ? 
as  that  preliminary  exclusion  of  the  supernatural  which 
I  have  already  presumed  to  notice.  My  own  offence,  if 
it  be  one,  was  of  another  character  ;  and  was  committed 
in  the  early  days  of  Homeric  study,  when  my  eyes  per¬ 
haps  were  dazzled  with  the  amazing  richness  and  variety 
of  the  results  which  reward  all  close  investigation  of  the 
text  of  Homer,  so  that  objects  were  blurred  for  a  time 
in  my  view,  which  soon  came  to  stand  with  greater 
clearness  before  me. 

I  had  better  perhaps  state  at  once  what  my  contention 
really  is.  It  is,  first,  that  many  important  pictures 
drawn,  and  indications  given,  in  the  Homeric  poems 
supply  such  evidence  as  cannot  be  confuted  not  only  of 
an  ideal  but  of  an  historical  relationship  to  the  Hebrew 
traditions,  (1)  and  mainly,  as  they  are  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis  ;  (2)  as  less  authentically  to  be  gathered 
from  the  later  Hebrew  learning  ;  and  (3)  as  illustrated 
from  extraneous  sources.  Secondly,  any  attempt  to 
expound  the  Olympian  mythology  of  Homer  wholesale, 
and  by  simple  reference  to  a  solar  theory,  or  even  to 
Nature  worship  in  a  larger  sense,  is  simply  a  plea  for  a 
verdict  against  the  evidence.  It  is  also  true  that  I  have 
an  unshaken  belief  in  a  Divine  Revelation,  not  resting 
on  assumption,  but  made  obligatory  upon  me  by  reason. 
But  I  hold  the  last  of  these  convictions  entirely  apart 
from  the  others,  and  I  derived  the  first  and  second  not 


6 


PAWN  OF  CREATION  ANP  OF  WORSHIP. 


from  preconception,  of  which  I  had  not  a  grain,  but 
from  the  poems  themselves,  as  purely  as  I  derived  my 
knowledge  of  the  Peloponnesian  War  from  Thucydides 
or  his  interpreters. 

The  great  importance  of  this  contention  I  do  not 
deny.  I  have  produced  in  its  favour  a  great  mass  of 
evidence,  which,  as  far  as  I  have  seen,  there  has  been  no 
serious  endeavour,  if  indeed  any  endeavour,  to  repel. 
Dr.  Reville  observes  that  my  views  have  been  subjected 
to  “  very  profound  criticism  ”  by  Sir  G.  Cox  in  his  learned 
work  on  Aryan  mythology  (p.  41).  That  is  indeed  a 
very  able  criticism ;  but  it  is  addressed  entirely  to  the 
statements  of  my  earliest  Homeric  work.*  Now,  apart 
from  the  question  whether  those  statements  have  been 
rightly  understood  (which  I  cannot  admit),  that  which 
he  attacks  is  beyond  and  outside  of  the  proposition 
which  I  have  given  above.  Sir  G.  Cox  has  not 
attempted  to  decide  the  question  whether  there  was 
a  primitive  revelation,  or  whether  it  may  be  traced 
in  Homer.  And  I  may  say  that  I  am  myself  so  little 
satisfied  with  the  precise  form,  in  which  my  general 
conclusions  were  originally  clothed,  that  I  have  not 
reprinted  and  shall  not  reprint  the  work,  which  has 
become  very  rare,  only  appearing  now  and  then  in  some 
catalogue,  and  at  a  high  price.  When  there  are  repre¬ 
sentatives  living  and  awake,  why  disturb  the  ashes  of 
the  dead?  In  later  works,  reaching  from  1865  to  1875, f 
I  have  confessed  to  the  modification  of  my  results,  and 
have  stated  the  case  in  terms  which  appear  to  me,  using 


*  ‘  Studies  on  Homer  and  the  Homeric  Age,’  3  vols.  Oxford,  1858, 
f  ‘Address  to  the  University  of  Edinburgh’  (Murray,  1865); 
‘  Juventus  Mundi  ’  (Macmillan,  1868);  ‘Primer  of  Homer’  (Mac¬ 
millan,  1878);  especially  see  Preface  to  ‘  Juventus  Mundi,’  p.  1. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.  7 

the  common  phrase,  to  be  those  yielded  by  the  legitimate 
study  of  comparative  religion.  But  why  should  those, 
who  think  it  a  sound  method  of  comparative  religion  to 
match  together  the  Yedas,  the  Norse  legends,  and  the 
Egyptian  remains,  think  it  to  be  no  process  of  com¬ 
parative  religion  to  bring  together,  not  vaguely  and 
loosely,  but  in  searching  detail,  certain  traditions  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis  and  those  recorded  in  the  Homeric 
poems,  and  to  argue  that  their  resemblances  may  afford 
proof  of  a  common  origin,  without  any  anticipatory 
assumption  as  to  what  that  origin  may  ultimately  prove 
to  be  ? 

It  will  hardly  excite  surprise,  after  what  has  now 
been  written,  when  I  say  I  am  now  unable  to  accept  as 
mine  any  one  of  the  propositions  which  Dr.  Reville 
(pp.  41-2)  affiliates  to  me.  (1)  I  do  not  hold  that  there 
was  a  “  systematic  ”  or  wilful  corruption  of  a  primitive 
religion.  (2)  I  do  not  hold  that  all  the  mythologies  are 
due  to  any  such  corruption  systematic  or  otherwise. 
(3)  I  do  not  hold  that  no  part  of  them  sprang  out  of 
the  deification  of  natural  facts.  (4)  I  do  not  hold  that 
the  ideas  conveyed  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  or  in  any 
Hebrew  tradition,  were  developed  in  the  form  of  dogma, 
as  is  said  by  Sir  G.  Cox,*  or  in  asix  great  doctrines’’ 
as  is  conceived  by  Dr.  Reville  ;  and  (5)  I  am  so  far 
from  ever  having  held  that  there  was  “  a  primitive 
orthodoxy  ”  revealed  to  the  first  men  (p.  43)  that  I 
have  carefully  from  the  first  referred  not  to  developed 
doctrine,  but  to  rudimentary  indications  of  what  are 
now  developed  and  established  truths.  So  that,  although 
Dr.  Beville  asks  me  for  proof,  I  decline  to  supply  proofs 


*  ‘Aryan  Mythology,’  vol.  i.  p.  15. 


8 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


of  what  I  disbelieve.  What  I  have  supplied  proofs  of 
is  the  appearance  in  the  Poems  of  a  number  of  traits, 
incongruous  in  various  degrees  with  their  immediate 
environment,  but  having  such  marked  and  characteristic 
resemblances  to  the  Hebrew  tradition  as  to  require  of 
us,  in  the  character  of  rational  inquirers,  the  admission 
of  a  common  origin,  just  as  the  markings,  which  are 
sometimes  noticed  upon  the  coats  of  horses  and  donkeys, 
are  held  to  require  the  admission  of  their  relationship 
to  the  zebra. 

It  thus  appears  that  Dr.  Reville  has  discharged  his 
pistol  in  the  air,  for  my  Homeric  propositions  involve  no 
assumption  as  to  a  revelation  contained  in  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  while  he  has  not  ex  jprofesso  contested  my 
statements  of  an  historical  relationship  between  some 
traditions  of  that  book  and  those  of  the  Homeric  poems. 
But  I  will  now  briefly  examine  (1)  the  manner  in  which 
Dr.  Reville  handles  the  Book  of  Genesis,  and  (2)  the 
manner  in  which  he  undertakes,  by  way  of  specimen,  to 
construe  the  mythology  of  Homer,  and  enlists  it,  by 
comparison,  in  the  support  of  his  system  of  interpretation. 
And  first  with  the  first-named  of  these  two  subjects. 

Entering  a  protest  against  assigning  to  the  Book  “  a 
dictatorial  authority,”  that  is,  I  presume,  against  its 
containing  any  Divine  revelation  to  anybody,  he  passes 
on  to  examine  its  contents.  It  contains,  he  says, 
scientific  errors,  of  which  (p.  42,  n.)  he  specifies  three. 
His  charges  are  that  (1)  it  speaks  of  the  heaven  as  a 
solid  vault;  (2)  it  places  the  creation  of  the  stars  after 
that  of  the  earth,  and  so  places  them  solely  for  its  use ; 
(3)  it  introduces  the  vegetable  kingdom  before  that 
kingdom  could  be  subjected  to  the  action  of  solar  light. 
All  these  condemnations  are  quietly  enunciated  in  a 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


9 


note,  as  if  they  were  subject  to  no  dispute.  Let 
us  see. 

As  to  the  first :  if  our  scholars  are  right  in  their 
judgment,  just  made  known  to  the  world  by  the  recent 
revision  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  “firmament  ”  is,  in  the 
Hebrew  original,*  not  a  solid  vault,  but  an  expanse.  As 
to  the  second  (a)  it  is  not  said  in  the  sacred  text  that  the 
stars  were  made  solely  for  the  use  of  the  earth ;  ( b )  it  is 
true  that  no  other  use  is  mentioned.  That  is  to  say,  in 
the  case  of  the  stars,  no  use  or  time  is  named.  They 
give  us  light,  but  an  ineffectual  light ;  and  the  reference 
to  them  is  little  more  than  parenthetical,  and  is  in 
keeping  with  that  secondary  character,  which  alone  they 
hold  in  reference  to  the  earth.  For,  all  along,  we  must 
here  inquire  what  was  the  purpose  of  the  narrative  ? 
Not  to  rear  cosmic  philosophers,  but  to  furnish  ordinary, 
and  especially  primitive,  men  with  some  idea  of  what 
the  Creator  had  done  in  the  way  of  providing  for  them 
a  home,  and  giving  them  a  place  in  nature. 

The  assertion  that  the  stars  are  stated  to  have  been 
“created  ”  after  the  earth  is  more  serious.  But  here  it 
becomes  necessary  first  of  all  to  notice  the  recital  in  this 
part  of  the  indictment.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Reville, 
the  Book  speaks  of  the  creation  of  the  stars  after  the 
formation  of  the  earth.  Now,  curiously  enough,  the 
Book  says  nothing  either  of  the  “  formation  ”  of  the  earth, 
or  of  the  “  creation  ”  of  the  stars.  It  says  in  its  first  line 
that  “  in  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth.”  It  says  further  on,j  “He  made  the  stars  also.” 
Can  it  be  urged  that  this  is  a  fanciful  distinction  between 


*  The  (TTepew/bia  of  the  Septuagint  is  construed  in  conformity  with 
the  Hebrew.  f  Gen.  i.  16. 


10 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


creating  on  the  one  hand  and  making,  forming,  or 
fashioning  on  the  other  ?  Dante  did  not  think  so,  for, 
speaking  of  the  Divine  Will,  he  says  : — 

“  Cio  ck’  Ella  cria,  e  che  Natura  face.”  * 

Luther  did  not  think  so,  for  he  uses  scJiuf  in  the  first 
verse,  and  maclite  in  the  sixteenth.  The  English  Trans¬ 
lators  and  their  Revisers  did  not  think  so,  for  they  use 
the  words  “  created  ”  and  “  made  ”  in  the  two  passages 
respectively.  The  main  question,  however,  is  what 
did  the  author  of  the  Book  think,  and  what  did  he 
intend  to  convey  ?  The  LXX  drew  no  distinction,  pro¬ 
bably  for  the  simple  reason  that,  as  the  idea  of  creation 
proper  was  not  familiar  to  the  Greeks,  their  language 
conveyed  no  word  better  than  poiein  to  express  it,  which 
is  also  the  proper  word  for  fashioning  or  making.  But 
the  Hebrew,  it  seems,  had  the  distinction,  and  by  the 
writer  of  Genesis  i.  it  has  been  strictly,  to  Dr.  Reville  I 
might  almost  say  scientifically,  followed.  He  uses  the 
word  “created”  on  the  three  grand  occasions  (1)  of 
the  beginning  of  the  mighty  work  (v.  1)  ;  (2)  of  the 
beginning  of  animal  life  (v.  21)  “And  God  created 
great  whales,”  and  every  living  creature  that  peoples  the 
waters ;  (3)  of  the  yet  more  important  beginning  of 
rational  and  spiritual  life ;  “  so  God  created  man  in  His 
own  image  ”  (v.  27).  In  every  other  instance,  the  simple 
command  is  recited,  or  a  word  implying  less  than  creation 
is  employed. 

From  this  very  marked  mode  of  use,  it  is  surely  plain 
that  a  marked  distinction  of  sense  was  intended  by  the 
sacred  writer.  I  will  not  attempt  a  definition  of  the 


*  ‘  Paradiso,’  iii,  87. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


11 


distinction  further  than  this,  that  the  one  phrase  points 
more  to  calling  into  a  separate  or  individual  existence, 
the  other  more  to  shaping  and  fashioning  the  conditions 
of  that  existence ;  the  one  to  quid ,  the  other  to  quale. 
Our  Earth,  created  in  v.  1,  undergoes  structural  change, 
different  arrangement  of  material,  in  v.  9.  After  this, 
and  in  the  fourth  day,  comes  not  the  original  creation, 
but  the  location,  or  exhibition  in  the  firmament,  of 
the  sun  and  the  moon.  Of  their  “  creation  ”  nothing 
particular  has  been  said ;  for  no  use,  palpable  to  man, 
was  associated  with  it  before  their  perfect,  or  at  least 
sufficient,  equipment.  Does  it  not  seem  allowable  to 
suppose  that  in  the  “heavens”  '*  (v.  1),  of  which  after 
the  first  outset  we  hear  no  more,  were  included  the 
planetary  bodies  ?  In  any  case  what  is  afterwards  con¬ 
veyed  is  not  the  calling  into  existence  of  the  sun  and 
moon,  but  the  assignment  to  them  of  a  certain  place  and 
orbit  respectively,  with  a  light-giving  power.  Is  there 
the  smallest  inconsistency  in  a  statement  which  places 
the  emergence  of  our  land,  and  its  separation  from  the 
sea,  and  the  commencement  of  vegetable  life,  before  the 
more  full  and  gathered  concentration  of  light  in  the 
sun,  and  its  reflection  on  the  moon  and  the  planets  ? 
In  the  gradual  severance  of  other  elements,  would  not 
the  severance  of  the  luminous  body,  or  force,  be  gradual 
also?  And  why,  let  me  ask  of  Dr.  Reville,  as  there 
would  plainly  be  light  diffused  before  there  was  light 
concentrated,  why  may  not  that  light  diffused  have  been 


*  In  our  translation,  and  in  the  recent  Revision,  the  singular  is 
used.  But  we  are  assured  that  the  Hebrew  word  is  plural  (Bishop  of 
Winchester  on  Genesis  i.  1  in  the  Speaker’s  Bible).  If  so  taken,  we 
have  the  creation,  visible  to  us,  treated  conjointly  in  verses  1-5,  dis- 
tributively  in  verses  6-19;  surely  a  most  orderly  arrangement. 


12  DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 

sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  vegetation  ?  There  was 
soil,  there  was  atmosphere,  there  was  moisture,  there 
was  light.  What  more  could  be  required  ?  Need  we 
go  beyond  our  constant  experience  to  be  aware  that 
the  process  of  vegetation,  though  it  may  be  slackened 
or  suspended,  is  not  arrested,  when,  through  the  presence 
of  cloud  and  vapour,  the  sun’s  globe  becomes  to  us  in¬ 
visible  ?  The  same  observations  may  apply  to  the  light 
of  the  planets ;  while  as  to  the  other  stars,  such  as  were 
then  perceptible  to  the  human  eye,  we  know  nothing. 
The  planets,  being  luminous  bodies  only  through  the 
action  of  the  sun,  could  not  be  luminous  until  such  a 
degree  of  light,  or  of  light-force,  was  accumulated  upon 
or  in  the  sun,  as  to  make  them  spherically  luminous, 
instead  of  being  either 

“  silent  as  tlie  moon, 

When  she  deserts  the  night 

Hid  in  her  vacant  interlunar  cave,”  * 

or  at  least  unprovided  with  definite  luminous  figure.  Is 
it  not  then  the  fact,  thus  far,  that  the  impeachment  of 
the  Book  has  fallen  to  the  ground  ?  There  remains  to 
add  only  one  remark,  the  propriety  of  which  is,  I  think, 
indisputable.  Easy  comprehension  and  impressive  force 
are  the  objects  to  be  aimed  at  in  a  composition  at  once 
popular  and  summary ;  but  these  cannot  always  be  had 
without  some  departure  from  accurate  classification,  and 
from  the  order  of  minute  detail.  It  seems  much  more 
easy  to  justify  the  language  of  the  opening  verses  of 
Genesis  than,  for  example,  the  convenient  usage  by 
which  we  affirm  that  the  sun  rises,  or  mounts  above 
the  horizon,  and  sets,  or  descends  below  it,  when  we 


*  ‘  Samson  Agonistes.’ 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


13 


know  perfectly  well  that  he  does  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other.  As  to  the  third  charge  of  scientific  error, 
that  the  vegetable  kingdom  appeared  before  it  could  be 
subjected  to  the  action  of  solar  light,  it  has  already 
been  in  substance  disposed  of.  If  the  light  now  appro¬ 
priated  to  the  sun  alone  was  gradually  gathering 
towards  and  round  his  centre,  why  may  it  not  have 
performed  its  proper  office  in  contributing  to  vegetation 
when  once  the  necessary  degree  of  severance  between 
solid  and  fluid,  between  wet  and  dry,  had  been  effected  ? 
And  this  is  just  what  had  been  described  in  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  the  firmament,  and  the  separation  of  land 
from  sea. 

More  singular  still  seems  to  be  the  next  observation 
offered  by  Dr.  Reville  in  his  compound  labour  to  satisfy 
his  readers,  first,  that  there  is  no  revelation  in  Genesis, 
and  secondly  that,  if  there  be,  it  is  one  which  has  no 
serious  or  relevant  meaning.  He  comes  to  the  remark¬ 
able  expression,  in  v.  26,  “  Let  us  make  man  in  our  own 
image.”  There  has,  it  appears,  been  much  difference  of 
opinion  even  among  the  Jews  on  the  meaning  of  this 
verse.  The  Almighty  addresses,  as  some  think,  His 
own  powers ;  as  others  think,  the  angels ;  others,  the 
earth ;  other  writers,  especially,  as  it  appears,  Germans, 
have  understood  this  to  be  a  plural  of  dignity,  after  the 
manner  of  kings.  Others,  of  the  rationalising  school, 
conceive  the  word  Elohim  to  be  a  relic  of  polytheism. 
The  ancient  Christian  interpreters,*  from  the  Apostle 
Barnabas  onwards,  find  in  these  words  an  indication  of 
a  plurality  in  the  Divine  Unity.  Dr.  Reville  (p.  43) 

*  On  this  expression,  I  refer  again  to  the  commentary  of  Bishop 
Harold  Browne.  Bishop  Mant  supplies  an  interesting  list  of 
testimonies. 


14 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


holds  that  this  is  “  simply  the  royal  plural  used  in 
Hebrew  as  in  many  other  languages,”  or  else,  “  and 
more  probably,”  that  it  is  an  appeal  to  the  Bene  Elohim 
or  angels.  But  is  not  this  latter  meaning  a  direct 
assault  upon  the  supreme  truth  of  the  Unity  of  God  ? 
If  he  chooses  the  former,  from  whence  does  he  derive 
his  knowledge  that  this  “  royal  plural  ”  was  used  in 
Hebrew  ?  Will  the  royal  plural  account  for  (Gen.  iii. 
22),  “  when  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us”?  and 
would  George  the  Second,  if  saying  of  Charles  Edward, 
“  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,”  have  intended  to 
convey  a  singular  or  a  plural  meaning  ?  Can  we  dis¬ 
prove  the  assertion  of  Bishop  Harold  Browne,  that  this 
plurality  of  dignity  is  unknown  to  the  language  of 
Scripture  ?  And  further,  if  we  make  the  violent 
assumption  that  the  Christian  Church  with  its  one 
voice  is  wrong  and  Dr.  Beville  right,  and  that  the  words 
were  not  meant  to  convey  the  idea  of  plurality,  yet,  if 
they  have  been  such  as  to  lead  all  Christendom  to  see 
in  them  this  idea  through  1800  years,  how  can  he  be 
sure  that  they  did  not  convey  a  like  signification  to  the 
earliest  hearers  or  readers  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  ? 

The  rest  of  Dr.  Reville’s  criticism  is  directed  rather 
to  the  significance  or  propriety,  than  to  the  truth,  of  the 
record.  It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  his  remarks  in 
detail,  but  it  will  help  the  reader  to  judge  how  far  even 
a  perfectly  upright  member  of  the  scientific  and  com¬ 
parative  school  can  indulge  an  unconscious  bias,  if  notice 
be  taken  in  a  single  instance  of  his  method  of  com¬ 
paring.  He  compares  together  the  two  parts  of  the 
prediction  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the 
head  of  the  serpent,  and  that  the  serpent  shall  bruise 
the  heel  of  the  seed  of  the  woman  (iii.  15);  and  he 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


15 


conceives  the  head  and  the  heel  to  be  so  much  upon  a  par 
in  their  relation  to  the  faculties  and  the  vitality  of  a 
man  that  he  can  find  here  nothing  to  indicate  which 
shall  get  the  better,  or,  in  his  own  words,  “  on  which 
side  shall  be  the  final  victory  ”  (p.  45).  St.  Paul  seems 
to  have  taken  a  different  view  when  he  wrote,  “  the 
God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet  shortly  ” 
(Rom.  xvi.  20). 

Moreover  “  our  author  ”  (in  Dr.  Reville's  phrase)  is 
censured  because  he  “takes  special  care  to  point  out” 
(p.  44)  u  that  the  first  pair  are  as  yet  strangers  to  the  most 
elementary  notions  of  morality,”  inasmuch  as  they  are 
unclothed,  yet  without  shame  ;  nay,  even,  as  he  feelingly 
says,  “  without  the  least  shame.”  In  what  the  morality 
of  the  first  pair  consisted,  this  is  hardly  the  place  to 
discuss.  But  let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  their 
morality  was  simply  the  morality  of  a  little  child,  the 
undeveloped  morality  of  obedience,  without  distinctly 
formed  conceptions  of  an  ethical  or  abstract  standard. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  their  feelings  would  have  been 
exactly  what  the  Book  describes  (Gen.  ii.  25),  and  yet 
that  in  their  loving  obedience  to  their  Father  and 
Creator  they  would  certainly  have  had  a  germ,  let  me 
say  an  opening  bud,  of  morality  ?  But  this  proposition, 
taken  alone,  by  no  means  does  justice  to  the  case.  Dr. 
Reville  would  probably  put  aside  with  indifference  or 
contempt  all  that  depends  upon  the  dogma  of  the  Fall. 
And  yet  there  can  be  no  more  rational  idea,  no  idea 
more  palpably  sustained,  whether  by  philosophy  or  by 
experience.  Namely  this  idea  :  that  the  commission  of 
sin,  that  is  the  act  of  deliberately  breaking  a  known 
law  of  duty,  injures  the  nature  and  composition  of  the 
being  who  commits  it.  It  injures  that  nature  by 


16 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


deranging  it,  by  altering  the  proportion  of  its  parts  and 
powers,  by  introducing  an  inward  disorder  and  rebellion 
of  the  lower  against  the  higher,  too  mournfully  corre¬ 
sponding  with  all  the  disorder  and  rebellion  produced 
outwardly,  as  towards  God,  of  which  the  first  sin  was 
the  fountain  head.  Such  is,  I  believe,  the  language  of 
Christian  theology,  and  in  particular  of  St.  Augustine, 
one  of  its  prime  masters.  On  this  matter  I  apprehend 
that  Dr.  Reville,  when  judging  the  author  of  Genesis, 
judges  him  without  regard  to  his  fundamental  ideas  and 
aims,  one  of  which  was  to  convey  that  before  sinning 
man  was  a  being  morally  and  physically  balanced,  and 
nobly  pure  in  every  faculty ;  and  that,  by  and  from  his 
sinning,  the  sense  of  shame  found  a  proper  and  necessary 
place  in  a  nature  which  before  was  only  open  to  the 
sense  of  duty  and  of  reverence. 

One  further  observation  only.  Dr.  Reville  seems  to 
11  score  one”  when  he  finds  (Gen.  iv.  26)  that  Seth  had 
a  son,  and  that  “  then  began  men  to  call  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord ;  ”  “  but  not,”  he  adds,  “  as  the  result  of  a 
recorded  revelation.”  Here  at  last  he  has  found,  or 
seemed  to  find,  the  beginning  of  religion,  and  that 
beginning  subjective,  not  revealed.  So  hastily,  from 
the  first  aspect  of  the  text,  does  he  gather  a  verbal 
advantage,  which,  upon  the  slightest  inquiry,  would 
have  disappeared,  like  dew  in  the  morning  sun.  He 
assumes  the  rendering  of  a  text  which  has  been  the 
subject  of  every  kind  of  question  and  dispute,  the  only 
thing  apparently  agreed  on  by  others  being,  that  his 
interpretation  is  wholly  excluded.  Upon  a  disputed 
original,  and  a  disputed  interpretation  of  the  disputed 
original,  he  founds  a  signification  in  flat  contradiction 
to  the  whole  of  the  former  narrative,  to  Elohist  and 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


17 


Jehovist  alike ;  which  narrative,  if  it  represents  any¬ 
thing,  represents  a  continuity  of  active  reciprocal  rela¬ 
tion  between  God  and  man  both  before  and  after  the 
transgression.  Not  to  mention  differences  of  transla¬ 
tion,  which  essentially  change  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  the  text  itself  is  given  by  the  double  authority 
of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  *  and  of  the  Septuagint 
in  the  singular  number,  which  of  itself  wholly  destroys 
the  construction  of  Dr.  Reville.  I  do  not  enter  upon  the 
difficult  question  of  conflicting  authorities  :  but  I  urge 
that  it  is  unsafe  to  build  an  important  conclusion  upon 
a  seriously  controverted  reading,  f 

In  the  criticisms,  then,  of  Dr.  Reville  we  find  what 
rather  tends  to  confirm  than  to  impair  the  old-fashioned 
belief  that  there  is  a  revelation  in  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
With  his  argument  outside  this  proposition  I  have  not 
dealt.  I  make  no  assumption  as  to  what  is  termed 
a  verbal  inspiration,  and  of  course,  in  admitting  the 
variety,  I  give  up  the  absolute  integrity  of  the  text. 
Upon  the  presumable  age  of  the  book  and  its  compila¬ 
tion  I  do  not  enter — not  even  to  contest  the  opinion 
which  brings  it  down  below  the  age  of  Solomon — beyond 
observing  that  in  every  page  it  appears  from  internal 
evidence  to  belong  to  a  remote  antiquity.  There  is  here 
no  question  of  the  chronology,  or  of  the  date  of  man,  or 
of  knowledge  or  ignorance  in  the  primitive  man ;  or 
whether  the  element  of  parable  enters  into  any  portion 

*  See  Bishop  of  Winchester’s  ‘  Commentary.’ 

f  This  perplexed  question  is  discussed,  in  a  sense  adverse  to  the 
Septuagint,  by  the  critic  of  the  recent  Revision,  in  the  Quarterly 
Review  for  October,  No.  322.  The  Revisers  of  the  Old  Testament 
state  (Preface,  p.  vi.)  that  in  a  few  cases  of  extreme  difficulty  they 
have  set  aside  the  Massoretic  Text  in  favour  of  a  reading  from  one  of 
the  Ancient  Versions. 


I. 


C 


18 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


of  the  narrative  ;  or  whether  every  statement  of  fact 
contained  in  the  text  of  the  Book,  can  now  be  made 
good.  It  is  enough  for  my  present  purpose  to  point  to 
the  cosmogony,  and  the  fourfold  succession  of  the  living 
organisms,  as  entirely  harmonising,  according  to  present 
knowledge,  with  belief  in  a  revelation,  and  as  presenting 
to  the  rejector  of  that  belief  a  problem,  which  demands 
solution  at  his  hands,  and  which  he  has  not  yet  been 
able  to  solve.  Whether  this  revelation  was  conveyed 
to  the  ancestors  of  the  whole  human  race  who  have  at 
the  time  or  since  existed,  I  do  not  know,  and  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  does  not  appear  to  me  to  make  the  affirmation,  even 
if  they  do  not  convey  certain  indications  which  favour 
a  contrary  opinion.  Again,  whether  it  contains  the 
whole  of  the  knowledge  specially  vouchsafed  to  the 
parents  of  the  Noachian  races,  may  be  very  doubtful ; 
though  of  course  great  caution  must  be  exercised  in 
regard  to  the  particulars  of  any  primaeval  tradition  not 
derived  from  the  text  of  the  earliest  among  the  sacred 
Books.  I  have  thus  far  confined  myself  to  rebutting 
objections.  But  I  will  now  add  some  positive  considera¬ 
tions  which  appear  to  me  to  sustain  the  ancient,  and  as 
I  am  persuaded  impregnable,  belief  of  Christians  and 
of  Jews  concerning  the  inspiration  of  the  Book.  I  offer 
them  as  one  wholly  destitute  of  that  kind  of  knowledge 
which  carries  authority,  and  who  speaks  derivatively  as 
best  he  can,  after  listening  to  teachers  of  repute  and 
such  as  practise  rational  methods. 

I  understand  the  stages  of  the  majestic  process  de¬ 
scribed  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  to  be  in  general  outline 
as  follows  : — 

1.  The  point  of  departure  is  the  formless  mass,  created 
by  God,  out  of  which  the  earth  (and  not  the  earth 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


19 


alone)  was  shaped  and  constituted  a  thing  of  individual 
existence  (vers.  1,  2). 

2.  The  detachment  and  collection  of  light,  leaving  in 
darkness  as  it  proceeded  the  still  chaotic  mass  from 
which  it  was  detached  (vers.  3-5).  The  narrative 
assigning  a  space  of  time  to  each  process  appears  to 
show  that  each  was  gradual,  not  instantaneous. 

3.  The  detachment  of  light  from  darkness  is  followed 
by  the  detachment  of  wet  from  dry,  and  of  solid  from 
liquid,  in  the  firmament,  and  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Each  of  these  operations  occupies  a  “  day  ;  ”  and  the 
conditions  of  vegetable  life,  as  known  to  us  by  experience, 
being  now  provided,  the  order  of  the  vegetable  kingdom 
began  (vers.  6-13). 

4.  Next  comes  the  presentation  to  us  of  the  heavenly 
bodies — sun,  moon,  and  stars — in  their  definite  forms, 
when  the  completion  of  the  process  of  light-collection 
and  concentration  in  the  sun,  and  the  due  clearing  of 
the  intervening  spaces,  had  enabled  the  central  orb  to 
illuminate  us  both  with  direct  and  with  reflected  light 
(vers.  14-19). 

5.  So  far,  we  have  been  busy  only  with  the  adjust¬ 
ment  of  material  agencies.  We  now  arrive  at  the  dawn 
of  animated  being ;  and  a  great  transition  seems  to  be 
marked  as  a  kind  of  recommencement  of  the  work, 
for  the  name  of  creation  is  again  introduced.  God 
created — 

(a)  The  water-population  ; 

( b )  The  air-population. 

And  they  receive  His  benediction  (vers.  20-23). 

6.  Pursuing  this  regular  progression  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  the  text 
now  gives  us  the  work  of  the  sixth  “day,”  which  supplies 


20 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


the  land-population  —  air  and  water  having  already 
been  supplied.  But  in  it  there  is  a  sub-division,  and 
the  transition  from  (c)  animal  to  ( d )  man,  like  the 
transition  from  inanimate  to  animate,  is  again  marked 
as  a  great  occasion,  a  kind  of  recommencement.  For 
this  purpose  the  word  ‘ £  create  ”  is  a  third  time  em¬ 
ployed.  “  God  created  man  in  His  own  image,”  and 
once  more  He  gave  benediction  to  this  the  final  work  of 
His  hands,  and  endowed  our  race  with  its  high  dominion 
over  what  lived  and  what  did  not  live  (vers.  24-31). 

I  do  not  dwell  on  the  cessation  of  the  Almighty  from 
the  creating  and  (ii.  1)  “finishing”  work,  which  is  the 
“  rest”  and  marks  the  seventh  “day,”  because  it  intro¬ 
duces  another  order  of  considerations.  But  glancing 
back  at  the  narrative  which  now  forms  the  first  Chapter, 
I  offer  perhaps  a  prejudiced,  and  in  any  case  no  more 
than  a  passing,  remark.  If  we  view  it  as  popular 
narrative,  it  is  singularly  vivid,  forcible,  and  effective  ; 
if  we  take  it  as  poem,  it  is  indeed  sublime.  No 
wonder  if  it  became  classical  and  reappeared  in  the 
glorious  devotions  of  the  Hebrew  people,*  pursuing,  in 
a  great  degree,  the  same  order  of  topics  as  in  the  Book 
of  Genesis. 

But  the  question  is  not  here  of  a  lofty  poem,  or  a 
skilfully  constructed  narrative:  it  is  whether  natural 
science,  in  the  patient  exercise  of  its  high  calling  to 
examine  facts,  finds  that  the  works  of  God  cry  out 
against  what  we  have  fondly  believed  to  be  His  Word, 
and  tell  another  tale ;  or  whether,  in  this  nineteenth 
century  of  Christian  progress,  it  substantially  echoes 


*  Ps.  civ.  2-20 ;  exxxvi.  5-9  ;  and  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children 
in  vers.  57-60. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


21 


back  the  majestic  sound  which,  before  physical  science 
existed  as  a  pursuit,  went  forth  into  all  lands. 

First,  looking  largely  at  the  latter  portion  of  the 
narrative,  which  describes  the  creation  of  living  organ¬ 
isms,  and  waiving  details,  on  some  of  which  (as  in  ver. 
24)  the  Septuagint  seems  to  vary  from  the  Hebrew, 
there  is  a  grand  fourfold  division,  set  forth- in  an  orderly 
succession  of  times  as  follows :  on  the  fifth  day — 

1.  The  water-population ; 

2.  The  air-population  ; 
and,  on  the  sixth  day, 

3.  The  land-population  of  animals  ; 

4.  The  land-population  consummated  in  man. 

Now,  this  same  fourfold  order  is  understood  to  have 
been  so  affirmed  in  our  time  by  natural  science,  that  it 
may  be  taken  as  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  estab¬ 
lished  fact/"'  Then,  I  ask,  how  came  Moses,  or,  not  to 
cavil  on  the  word,  how  came  the  author  of  the  first 
Chapter  of  Genesis,  to  know  that  order,  to  possess 
knowledge  which  natural  science  has  only  within  the 
present  century  for  the  first  time  dug  out  of  the  bowels 
of  the  earth  ?  It  is  surely  impossible  to  avoid  the 
conclusion,  first,  that  either  this  writer  was  gifted  with 
faculties  passing  all  human  experience,  or  else  his  know¬ 
ledge  was  divine.  The  first  branch  of  the  alternative  is 
truly  nominal  and  unreal.  We  know  the  sphere  within 
which  human  inquiry  toils.  W e  know  the  heights  to 

*  The  proposition  conveyed  in  this  sentence  requires  some  qualifica¬ 
tion.  As  regards  the  general  sketch  of  the  fourfold  order,  it  is  too 
succinct  to  convey  anything  material.  But  the  candid  reader  will 
observe  that  while  this  order  is  stated  generally,  no  attempt  is  made 
to  assert  the  completeness  of  the  outline,  or  to  exclude  the  overlapping 
of  periods,  or  the  intermixture  of  processes,  neither  of  which  impair  the 
force  of  the  argument.  See  a  following  paper,  ‘  Proem  to  Genesis.’ 


22 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


which  the  intuitions  of  genius  may  soar.  We  know 
that  in  certain  cases  genius  anticipates  science ;  as 
Homer,  for  example,  in  his  account  of  the  conflict  of  the 
four  winds  in  sea-storms.  But  even  in  these  anticipa¬ 
tions,  marvellous,  and,  so  to  speak,  imperial  as  they  are, 
genius  cannot  escape  from  one  inexorable  law.  It  must 
have  materials  of  sense  or  experience  to  work  with,  and 
a  ttov  crrco  from  whence  to  take  its  flight ;  and  genius 
can  no  more  tell,  apart  from  some  at  least  of  the  results 
attained  by  inquiry,  what  are  the  contents  of  the  crust 
of  the  earth,  than  it  could  square  the  circle,  or  annihilate 
a  fact.* 

So  stands  this  particular  plea  for  a  revelation  of  truth 
from  God,  a  plea  only  to  be  met  by  questioning  its 
possibility ;  that  is,  as  Hr.  Salmon  f  has  observed  with 
great  force  in  a  recent  work,  by  suggesting  that  a  Being, 
able  to  make  man,  is  unable  to  communicate  with  the 
creature  He  has  made.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
objector  confine  himself  to  a  merely  negative  position, 
and  cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  those  who  believe  in 
revelation,  it  is  obvious  to  reply  by  a  reference  to  the 
actual  constitution  of  things.  Had  that  constitution 
been  normal  or  morally  undisturbed,  it  might  have  been 
held  that  revelation  as  an  adminiculum,  an  addition  to 
our  natural  faculties,  would  itself  have  been  a  disturb¬ 
ance.  But  the  disturbance  has  in  truth  been  created 
in  the  other  scale  of  the  balance  by  departure  from  the 
Supreme  Will,  by  the  introduction  of  sin  ;  and  revelation, 


*  In  conversation  with  Miss  Burney  (‘  Diary,’  i.  576),  Johnson, 
using  language  which  sounds  more  disparaging  than  it  really  is, 
declares  that  ‘  Genius  is  nothing  more  than  knowing  the  use  of  tools; 
but  then  there  must  be  tools  for  it  to  use.’ 

f  ‘Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,’  p.  ix.  Murray,  1885. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


23 


as  a  sjiecial  remedy  for  a  special  evil,  is  a  contribution 
towards  symmetry,  and  towards  restoration  of  the 
original  equilibrium. 

Thus  far  only  the  fourfold  succession  of  living  orders 
has  been  noticed.  But  among  the  persons  of  very  high 
authority  in  natural  science  quoted  by  Dr.  Reusch,* 
who  held  the  general  accordance  of  the  Mosaic  cosmo¬ 
gony  with  the  results  of  modern  inquiry,  are  Cuvier  and 
Sir  John  Herschel.  The  words  of  Cuvier  show  he  con¬ 
ceived  that  “  every  day  ”  fresh  confirmation  from  the 
purely  human  source  accrued  to  the  credit  of  Scripture. 
And  since  his  day,  for  he  cannot  now  be  called  a  recent 
authority,  this  opinion  appears  to  have  received  some 
remarkable  illustrations. 

Half  a  century  ago,  Dr.  Whewell  f  discussed,  under 
the  name  of  the  nebular  hypothesis,  that  theory  of 
rotation  which  had  been  indicated  by  Herschel,  and 
more  largely  taught  by  La  Place,  as  the  probable 
method  through  which  the  solar  system  has  taken  its 
form.  Carefully  abstaining,  at  that  early  date,  from  a 
formal  judgment  on  the  hypothesis,  he  appears  to  discuss 
it  with  favour ;  and  he  shows  that  this  hypothesis, 
which  assumes  “  a  beginning  of  the  present  state  of 
things,”  |  is  in  no  way  adverse  to  the  Mosaic  cosmogony. 
The  theory  has  received  marked  support  from  opposite 
quarters.  In  the  ‘  Y estiges  of  Creation  5  it  is  frankly 
adopted ;  the  very  curious  experiment  of  Professor 


*  ‘  Bibel  und  Natur,’  pp.  2,  63.  The  words  of  Cuvier  are:  ‘Moyses 
hat  uns  eine  Kosmogonie  hinterlassen,  deren  Genauigkeit  mit  jedem 
Tage  in  einer  bewunderungswiirdigern  Weise  bestatigt  ist.’  The 
declaration  of  Sir  John  Herschel  was  in  1864. 

f  Whewell’s  ‘  Astronomy  and  General  Physics,’  1834,  p.  181  seqq. 

X  Whewell,  op.  cit.  p.  206. 


24  DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 

Plateau  is  detailed  at  length  on  its  behalf  ;  *  and  the 
author  considers,  with  La  Place,  that  the  zodiacal  light, 
on  which  Humboldt  in  his  1  Kosmos  ’  has  dwelt  at  large, 
may  be  a  remnant  of  the  luminous  atmosphere  originally 
diffused  around  the  sun.  Dr.  McCaul,  in  his  very  able 
argument  on  the  Mosaic  Record,  quotes  f  Humboldt, 
Pfaff,  and  Madler — a  famous  German  astronomer — as 
adhering  to  it.  It  appears  on  the  whole  to  be  in 
possession  of  the  field ;  and  McCaul  observes  J  that, 
‘ ‘  had  it  been  devised  for  the  express  purpose  of  re¬ 
moving  the  supposed  difficulties  of  the  Mosaic  record,  it 
could  hardly  have  been  more  to  the  purpose.”  Even  if  we 
were,  somewhat  daringly,  to  conceive,  with  Dr.  Reville, 
that  the  “creation,”  the  first  gift  of  separate  existence 
or  configuration,  to  the  planets  is  declared  to  have  been 
subsequent  to  that  of  the  earth,  there  seems  to  be  no 
known  law  which  excludes  such  a  supposition,  especially 
with  respect  to  the  larger  and  more  distant  of  their 
number.  These,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  are  of  great  rarity 
as  compared  with  the  earth.  Why  should  it  be  declared 
impossible  that  they  should  have  taken  a  longer  time  in 
condensation,  like  in  this  point  to  the  comets,  which  still 
continue  in  a  state  of  excessive  rarity  ?  Want  of  space 
forbids  me  to  enter  into  further  explanation ;  but  it 
requires  much  more  serious  efforts  and  objections  than 
those  of  Dr.  Reville  to  confute  the  statement  that  the 
extension  of  knowledge  and  of  inquiry  has  confirmed 
the  Mosaic  record. 

One  word,  however,  upon  the  “  days  ”  of  Genesis. 
We  do  not  hear  the  authority  of  Scripture  impeached 


*  ‘  Vestiges,’  etc.,  pp.  11-15. 

t  Ibid. 


f  ‘  Aids  to  Faith,’  p.  210. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


25 


on  the  ground  that  it  assigns  to  the  Almighty  eyes  and 
ears,  hands,  arms,  and  feet ;  nay,  even  the  emotions  of 
the  human  being.  This  being  so,  I  am  unable  to  under¬ 
stand  why  any  disparagement  to  the  credit  of  the 
sacred  books  should  ensue  because,  to  describe  the  order 
and  successive  stages  of  the  Divine  working,  these  have 
been  distributed  into  “  days.1’  What  was  the  thing 
required  in  order  to  make  this  great  procession  of  acts 
intelligible  and  impressive  ?  Surely  it  was  to  distribute 
the  parts  each  into  some  integral  division  of  time,  having 
the  character  of  something  complete  in  itself,  of  a  revo¬ 
lution,  or  an  outset  and  return.  There  are  but  three 
such  divisions  familiarly  known  to  man.  Of  these  the 
day  was  the  most  familiar  to  human  perceptions ;  and 
probably  on  this  account  its  figurative  use  is  admitted 
to  be  found  in  prophetic  texts,  as,  indeed,  it  largely 
pervades  ancient  and  modern  speech.  Given  the  object 
in  view,  which  indeed  can  hardly  be  questioned,  does  it 
not  appear  that  the  “  day,”  more  definitely  separated 
than  either  month  or  year  from  what  precedes  and 
what  follows,  was  appropriately  chosen  for  the  purpose 
of  conveying  the  idea  of  development  by  gradation  in 
the  process  which  the  Book  sets  forth  ? 

I  now  come  to  the  last  portion  of  my  task,  which  is  to 
follow  Dr.  Reville  into  his  exposition  of  the  Olympian 
mythology.  Not,  indeed,  the  Homeric  or  Greek  religion 
alone,  for  he  has  considered  the  case  of  all  religions,  and 
disposes  of  them  all  with  equal  facility.  Of  any  other 
system  than  the  Olympian,  it  would  be  presumption  in 
me  to  speak,  as  I  have,  beyond  this  limit,  none  but 
the  most  vague  and  superficial  knowledge.  But  on  the 
Olympian  system  in  its  earliest  and  least  adulterated, 
namely  its  Homeric,  development,  whether  with  success 


26 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


or  not,  I  have  freely  employed  a  large  share  of  such 
leisure  as  more  than  thirty  years  of  my  Parliamentary 
life,  passed  in  freedom  from  the  calls  of  office,  have 
supplied.  I  hope  that  there  is  not  in  Dr.  Reville’s 
treatment  of  other  systems  that  slightness  of  texture, 
and  that  facility  and  rapidity  of  conclusion,  which  seem 
to  me  to  mark  his  performances  in  the  Olympian  field. 

In  the  main  he  follows  what  is  called  the  solar  theory. 
In  his  widest  view,  he  embraces  no  more  than  “the 
religion  of  nature”  (pp.  94,  100),  and  he  holds  that  all 
religion  has  sprung  from  the  worship  of  objects  visible 
and  sensible. 

His  first  essay  is  upon  Heracles,  whom  I  have  found 
to  be  one  of  the  most  difficult  and,  so  to  speak,  irre¬ 
ducible  characters  in  the  Olympian  mythology.  In  the 
Tyrian  system  Heracles,  as  Melkart,  says  Dr.  Reville 
in  p.  95,  is  “  a  brazen  god,  the  devourer  of  children, 
the  terror  of  men ;  ”  but,  without  any  loss  of  identity, 
he  becomes  in  the  Greek  system  “  the  great  lawgiver, 
the  tamer  of  monsters,  the  peacemaker,  the  liberator.” 
I  am  deeply  impressed  with  the  danger  that  lurks  in 
these  summary  and  easy  solutions ;  and  I  will  offer 
a  few  words  first  on  the  Greek  Heracles  generally,  next 
on  the  Homeric  presentation  of  the  character. 

Dr.  L.  Schmidt  has  contributed  to  Smith's  great 
Dictionary  a  large  and  careful  article  on  Heracles ;  an 
article  which  may  almost  be  called  a  treatise.  Unlike 
Dr.  Reville,  to  whom  the  matter  is  so  clear,  he  finds 
himself  out  of  his  depth  in  attempting  to  deal  with  this 
highly  incongruous  character,  which  meets  us  at  so 
many  points,  as  a  whole.  But  he  perceives  in  the 
Heracles  of  Greece  a  mixture  of  fabulous  and  historic 
elements ;  and  the  mythical  basis  is  not,  according  to 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


27 


him,  a  transplanted  Melkart,  but  is  essentially  Greek.* 
He  refers  to  Buttmann’s  ‘  Mythologus  ’  and  Muller’s 
‘  Dorians  ’  as  the  best  treatises  on  the  subject,  “  both 
of  which  regard  the  hero  as  a  purely  Greek  character.” 
Thus  Dr.  Reville  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with,  leading 
authorities,  whom  he  does  not  confute,  but  simply 
ignores. 

Homer  himself  may  have  felt  the  difficulty  which 
Dr.  Reville  does  not  feel,  for  he  presents  to  us,  in  one 
and  the  same  passage,  a  divided  Heracles.  Whatever 
of  him  is  not  eidolon  f  dwells  among  the  Olympian  gods. 
This  eidolon ,  however,  is  no  mere  shade,  but  something 
that  sees  and  speaks,  that  mourns  and  threatens  ;  no 
“lawgiver,”  or  “peacemaker,”  or  “  liberator,”  but  one 
from  whom  the  other  shades  fly  in  terror,  set  in  the 
place  and  company  of  sinners  suffering  for  their  sins, 
and  presumably  himself  in  the  same  predicament,  as  the 
sense  of  grief  is  assigned  to  him  :  it  is  in  wailing  that 
he  addresses  Odysseus.  J  Accordingly,  while  on  earth, 
he  is  tlirasumemnoii'fe  huperthumosfh  a  doer  of  me  gala 
crga,\\  which  with  Homer  very  commonly  are  crimes. 
He  is  profane,  for  he  wounded  Here,  the  specially 
Achaian  goddess ;  **  and  he  is  treacherous,  for  he  killed 
Iphitos,  his  host,  in  order  to  carry  oft*  his  horses,  ff  A 
mixed  character,  no  doubt,  or  he  would  not  have  had 
Hebe  for  a  partner  ;  but  those  which  I  have  stated  are 
some  of  the  difficulties  which  Dr.  Reville  quietly  rides  over 
to  describe  him  as  lawgiver,  peacemaker,  and  liberator. 
In  Homer  he  is  no  lawgiver,  and  he  never  makes  peace. 
But  I  proceed. 

*  Smith’s  ‘Diet.’  ii.  400.  f  ‘  Od.’  xi.  601-4. 

t  ‘  Od.’  xi.  605-16.  §  ‘  Od.’  xi.  267.  If  ‘  II.’  xiv.  250. 

[|  ‘Od.’  xxi.  26.  **  ‘II.’  v.  392.  ff  ‘  Od.’  xxi.  26-30. 


28 


DAWN  OP  CREATION  AND  OP  WORSHIP. 


Nearly  everything,  with  Dr.  Reville,  and,  indeed, 
with  his  school,  has  to  be  pressed  into  the  service  of  the 
solar  theory  ;  and  if  the  evidence  will  not  bear  it,  so 
much  the  worse  for  the  evidence.  Thus  Ixion,  tortured 
in  the  later  Greek  system  on  a  wheel,  which  is  some¬ 
times  represented  as  a  burning  wheel,  is  made  (p.  105) 
to  be  the  Sun ;  the  luminary  whose  splendour  and 
beneficence  had  rendered  him,  according  to  the  theory, 
the  centre  of  all  Aryan  worship.  A  sorry  use  to  put 
him  to ;  but  let  that  pass.  Now  the  occasion  that 
supplies  an  Ixion  and  a  burning  wheel  available  for 
solarism — a  system  which  prides  itself  above  all  things 
on  its  exhibiting  the  primitive  state  of  things — is  that 
Ixion  had  loved  unlawfully  the  wife  of  Zeus.  And  first 
as  to  the  wheel.  We  hear  of  it  in  Pindar  ;*  but  as  a 
winged,  not  a  burning  wheel.  This  “  solar  ”  feature 
appears,  I  believe,  nowhere  but  in  the  latest  and  most 
defaced  and  adulterated  mythology.  Next  as  to  the 
punishment.  It  is  of  a  more  respectable  antiquity. 
But  some  heed  should  surely  be  taken  of  the  fact  that 
the  oldest  authority  upon  Ixion  is  Homer ;  and  that 
Homer  affords  no  plea  for  a  burning  or  any  other  wheel, 
for  according  to  him,|  instead  of  Ixion’s  loving  the 
wife  of  Zeus,  it  was  Zeus  who  loved  the  wife  of  Ixion. 

Errors,  conveyed  without  testimony  in  a  sentence, 
commonly  require  many  sentences  to  confute  them.  I 
will  not  dwell  on  minor  cases,  or  those  purely  fanciful  ; 
for  mere  fancies,  which  may  be  admired  or  the  reverse, 
are  impalpable  to  the  clutch  of  argument,  and  thus  are 
hardly  subjects  for  confutation.  Paulo  major  a  canamus. 
I  continue  to  tread  the  field  of  Greek  mythology, 


*  4  Pyth.’  ii.  39. 


f  ‘II.*  xiv.  317. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


29 


because  it  is  the  favourite  sporting-ground  of  the 
exclusivists  of  the  solar  theory. 

We  are  told  (p.  80)  that  because  waves  with  rounded 
backs  may  have  the  appearance  (but  query  ?)  of  horses 
or  sheep  throwing  themselves  tumultuously  upon  one 
another,  therefore  “  in  maritime  regions,  the  god  of  the 
liquid  element,  Poseidon  or  Neptune,  is  the  breeder, 
protector,  and  trainer  of  horses.”  Then  why  is  he  not 
also  the  breeder,  protector,  and  trainer  of  sheep  ?  They 
have  quite  as  good  a  maritime  title ;  according  to  the 
line  line  of  Ariosto — 

“  Muggendo  van  per  mare  i  gran  montoni.” 

I  am  altogether  sceptical  about  these  rounded  backs 
of  horses,  which,  more,  it  seems,  than  other  backs, 
become  conspicuous  like  a  wave.  The  resemblance,  I 
believe,  has  commonly  been  drawn  between  the  horse, 
as  regards  his  mane,  and  the  foam-tipped  waves,  which 
are  still  sometimes  called  white  horses.  But  we  have 
here,  at  best,  a  case  of  a  great  superstructure  built  upon 
a  slight  foundation ;  when  it  is  attempted,  on  the  ground¬ 
work  of  a  mere  simile,  having  reference  to  a  state  of  sea 
which  in  the  Mediterranean  is  not  the  rule  but  the  rare 
exception,  to  frame  an  explanation  of  the  close,  per¬ 
vading,  and  almost  profound  relation  of  the  Homeric 
Poseidon  to  the  horse.  Long  and  careful  investigation 
has  shown  me  that  this  is  an  ethnical  relation,  and  a 
key  to  important  parts  of  the  ethnography  of  Homer. 
But  the  proof  of  this  proposition  would  require  an  essay 
of  itself.  I  will,  therefore,  only  refer  to  the  reason 
which  leads  Hr.  Reville  to  construct  this  (let  me  say) 
castle  in  the  air.  It  is  because  he  thinks  he  is  account¬ 
ing  hereby  for  a  fact,  which  would  indeed,  if  established, 


30 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


be  a  startling  one,  that  the  gocl  of  the  liquid  element 
should  also  be  the  god  of  the  horse.  We  are  dealing- 
now  especially  with  the  Homeric  Poseidon,  for  it  is  in 
Homer  that  the  relation  to  the  horse  is  developed  ;  and 
the  way  to  a  true  explanation  is  opened  when  we 
observe  that  the  Homeric  Poseidon  is  not  the  god  of  the 
liquid  element,  as  such,  at  all. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Olympian  and  ruling  gods  of 
Homer  are  not  elemental.  Some  few  of  them  bear  the 
marks  of  having  been  elemental  in  other  systems ;  but, 
on  admission  into  the  Achaian  heaven,  they  are  divested 
of  their  elemental  features.  In  the  case  of  Poseidon, 
there  is  no  sign  that  he  ever  had  these  elemental 
features.  The  signs  are  unequivocal  that  he  had  been 
worshipped  as  supreme,  as  the  Zeus-Poseidon,  by  certain 
races  and  in  certain,  viz.  in  far  southern,  countries. 
Certainly  he  has  a  special  relation  to  the  sea.  Once, 
and  once  only,  do  we  hear  of  his  having  a  habitation 
under  water.*  It  is  in  ‘II.’  xiii.  where  he  fetches  his 
horses  from  it,  to  repair  to  the  Trojan  plain.  He  seems 
to  have  been  an  habitual  absentee ;  the  prototype,  he 
might  be  called,  of  that  ill-starred,  ill-favoured  class. 
We  hear  of  him  in  Samothrace,  on  the  Solyman  moun¬ 
tains,  as  visiting  the  Ethiopians  f  who  worshipped  him, 
and  the  reek  of  whose  offerings  he  preferred  at  such 
times  to  the  society  of  the  Olympian  gods  debating  on 
Hellenic  affairs ;  though,  when  we  are  in  the  zone  of 
the  Outer  Geography,  we  find  him  actually  presiding 
in  an  Olympian  assembly  marked  with  foreign  associa¬ 
tions.  J  Now  compare  with  this  great  mundane  figure 
the  true  elemental  gods  of  Homer  :  first,  Okeanos,  a 


*  ‘II.*  xiii.  17-31. 


f  ‘  Od.’  i.  25,  26.  X  ‘  Od.’  viii.  321-66. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


31 


venerable  figure,  who  dwells  appropriately  by  the 
furthest  *  bound  of  earth,  the  bank  of  the  Ocean-river, 
and  who  is  not  summoned  f  even  to  the  great  Olympian 
assembly  of  the  Twentieth  Book ;  and  secondly,  the 
greybeard  of  the  sea,  whom  only  from  the  patronymic 
of  his  Nereid  daughters  we  know  to  have  been  called 
Nereus,  and  who,  when  reference  is  made  to  him  and 
to  his  train,  is  on  each  occasion  £  to  be  found  in  one 
and  the  same  place,  the  deep  recesses  of  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  waters.  If  Dr.  Reville  still  doubts  who  was  for 
Homer  the  elemental  god  of  water,  let  him  note  the  fact 
that  while  neros  is  old  Greek  for  iret,  nero  is,  down  to 
this  very  day,  the  people’s  word  for  water.  But,  con¬ 
clusive  as  are  these  considerations,  their  force  will  be 
most  fully  appreciated  only  by  those  who  have  closely 
observed  that  Homer’s  entire  theurgic  system  is  reso¬ 
lutely  exclusive  of  Nature- worship,  except  in  its  lowest 
and  most  colourless  orders,  and  that  where  he  has  to 
deal  with  a  Nature-power  of  serious  pretensions,  such  as 
the  Water-god  would  be,  he  is  apt  to  pursue  a  method 
of  quiet  suppression,  by  local  banishment  or  otherwise, 
that  space  may  be  left  him  to  play  out  upon  his  board 
the  gorgeous  and  imposing  figures  of  his  theanthropic 
system. 

As  a  surgeon  performs  the  most  terrible  operation  in 
a  few  seconds,  and  with  unbroken  calm,  so  does  the 
school  of  Dr.  Reville,  at  least  within  the  Homeric  pre¬ 
cinct,  marshal,  label,  and  transmute  the  personages 
that  are  found  there.  In  touching  on  the  “log,”  by 
which  Dr.  Reville  says  Hera  was  represented  for  ages, 
she  is  quietly  described  as  the  “Queen  of  the  shining 


*  ‘II.’ xir.  201. 


t  ‘  II.’  xx.  7. 


X  ‘  II.’  i.  358  ;  xviii.  36. 


32 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


Heaven  ”  (p.  79).  For  this  assumption,  so  naively  made, 
I  am  aware  of  no  authority  whatever  among  the  Greeks  ; 
a  somewhat  formidable  difficulty  for  others  than  solarists, 
as  we  are  dealing  with  an  eminently  Greek  conception. 
Euripides,  a  rather  late  authority,  says,*  she  dwells 
among  the  stars,  as  all  deities  might  be  said,  ex  officio, 
to  do ;  but  gives  no  indication  either  of  identity  or  of 
queenship.  Etymology,  stoutly  disputed,  may  afford  a 
refuge.  Schmidt  f  refers  the  name  to  the  Latin  hera  ; 
Curtius  J  and  Preller  §  to  the  Sanscrit  svar,  meaning 
the  heaven ;  and  Welcker,1f  with  others,  to  what  appears 
the  more  obvious  form  of  epa,  the  earth.  Dr.  Reville, 
I  presume,  makes  choice  of  the  Sanscrit  svar.  Such 
etymologies,  however,  are,  though  greatly  in  favour  with 
the  solarists,  most  uncertain  guides  to  Greek  interpre¬ 
tation.  The  effect  of  trusting  to  them  is  that,  if  a  deity 
has  in  some  foreign  or  anterior  system  had  a  certain 
place  or  office,  and  if  this  place  or  office  has  been  altered 
to  suit  the  exigencies  of  a  composite  mythology,  the 
Greek  idea  comes  to  be  totally  misconceived.  If  we 
take  the  pre-name  of  the  Homeric  Apollo,  we  may  with 
some  plausibility  say  the  Phoibos  of  the  poet  is  the  Sun  ; 
but  we  are  landed  at  once  in  the  absurd  consequence 
that  we  have  got  a  Sun  already,  ||  and  that  the  two 
are  joint  actors  in  a  scene  of  the  eighth  ‘Odyssey.’** 
Strange,  indeed,  will  be  the  effect  of  such  a  system  if 
applied  to  our  own  case  at  some  date  in  the  far-off 
future ;  for  it  will  be  shown,  inter  alia,  that  there  were 


*  Eurip.  ‘  Helena,’  109.  f  Smith’s  ‘  Diet.’  art.  “  Hera.” 

X  4  Griech.  Etymol.’  p.  119.  §  Preller,  ‘  Griech.  Mythol.’  i.  121. 

‘Griech.  Gotterlehre,’  i.  362-3,  ||  See  infra. 

**  *  Od.’  v'lii.  302,  334. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


no  priests,  but  only  presbyters,  in  any  portion  of  Western 
Christendom ;  that  our  dukes  were  simply  generals 
leading  us  in  war ;  that  we  broke  our  fast  at  eight  in 
the  evening  (for  diner  is  but  a  compression  of  dejeuner )  ; 
and  even,  possibly,  that  the  Howards,  one  of  the  noblest 
and  most  famous  of  English  houses,  pursued  habitually 
the  humble  occupation  of  a  pig-driver. 

The  character  of  Hera,  or  Here,  has  received  from 
Homer  a  full  and  elaborate  development.  There  is  in 
it  absolutely  no  trace  whatever  of  “the  queen  of  the 
shining  heaven.”  In  the  action  of  the  ‘  Odyssey  ’  she 
has  no  share  at  all — a  fact  absolutely  unaccountable  if 
her  function  was  one  for  which  the  voyages  of  that 
poem  give  much  more  scope  than  is  supplied  by  the 
‘Iliad.’  The  fact  is,  that  there  is  no  queen  of  heaven 
in  the  Achaian  system ;  nor  could  there  be  without 
altering  its  whole  genius.  It  is  a  curious  incidental 
fact  that,  although  Homer  recognizes  to  some  extent 
humanity  in  the  stars  (I  refer  to  Orion  and  Leucothee, 
both  of  them  foreign  personages  of  the  Outer  Geography), 
he  never  even  approximates  to  a  personification  of  the 
real  queen  of  heaven,  namely,  the  moon.  There  happens 
to  be  one  marked  incident  of  the  action  of  Hera,  which 
stands  in  rather  ludicrous  contrast  with  this  lucent 
queenship.  On  one  of  the  occasions  when,  in  virtue  of 
her  birth  and  station,  she  exercises  some  supreme  pre¬ 
rogative,  she  directs  the  Sun  (surely  not  thus  to  her 
lord  and  master)  to  set,  and  he  reluctantly  obeys.  * 
Her  character  has  not  any  pronounced  moral  elements ; 
it  exhibits  pride  and  passion ;  it  is  pervaded  intensely 
with  policy  and  nationalism ;  she  is  beyond  all  others 


i. 


*  ‘II.’  xviii.  239,  240. 


D 


34 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


the  Achaian  goddess,  and  it  is  sarcastically  imputed  to 
her  by  Zeus  that  she  would  cut  the  Trojans  if  she  could, 
and  eat  them  without  requiring  in  the  first  instance  any 
culinary  process.*  I  humbly  protest  against  mauling 
and  disfiguring  this  work ;  against  what  great  Walter 
Scott  would,  I  think,  have  called  “  mashackering  and 
misguggling”  it,  after  the  manner  of  Nicol  Muschat, 
when  he  put  an  end  to  his  wife  Ailie  f  at  the  spot  after¬ 
wards  marked  by  his  name.  Why  blur  the  picture  so 
charged  alike  with  imaginative  power  and  with  historic 
meaning,  by  the  violent  obtrusion  of  ideas,  which,  what¬ 
ever  force  they  may  have  had  among  other  peoples  or 
in  other  systems,  it  was  one  of  the  main  purposes  of 
Homer,  in  his  marvellous  theurgic  work,  to  expel  from 
all  high  place  in  the  order  of  ideas,  and  from  every 
corner,  every  loft  and  every  cellar,  so  to  speak,  of  his 
Olympian  palaces  ? 

If  the  Hera  of  Homer  is  to  own  a  relationship  outside 
the  Achaian  system,  like  that  of  Apollo  to  the  Sun,  it 
is  undoubtedly  with  Gaia,  the  Earth,  that  it  can  be 
most  easily  established.  The  all-producing  function  of 
Gaia  in  the  Theogony  of  Hesiod  J  and  her  marriage 
with  Ouranos,  the  heaven,  who  has  a  partial  relation  to 
Zeus,  points  to  Hera  as  the  majestic  successor  who  in 
the  Olympian  scheme,  as  the  great  mother,  and  guardian 
of  maternity,  bore  an  analogical  resemblance  to  the 
female  head  of  one  or  more  of  the  Pelasgian  or  archaic 
theogonies  that  it  had  deposed. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  treatment  of  details,  and 
I  must  not  quit  them  without  saying  that  there  are 
some  of  the  chapters,  and  many  of  the  sentences,  of 


*  ‘IP  iv.  35.  f  ‘Heart  of  Midlothian.’  J  ‘  Theog.’  116-136. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


Dr.  Reville  which  appear  to  me  to  deserve  our  thanks. 
And,  much  as  I  differ  from  him  concerning  an  essential 
part  of  the  historic  basis  of  religion,  I  trust  that  nothing 
which  I  have  said  can  appear  to  impute  to  him  any  hos¬ 
tility  or  indifference  to  the  substance  of  religion  itself. 

I  make,  indeed,  no  question  that  the  solar  theory  has 
a  most  important  place  in  solving  the  problems  pre¬ 
sented  by  many  or  some  of  the  Aryan  religions ;  but 
whether  it  explains  their  first  inception  is  a  totally 
different  matter.  When  it  is  ruthlessly  applied,  in  the 
teeth  of  evidence,  to  them  all,  in  the  last  resort  it 
stifles  facts,  and  reduces  observation  and  reasoning  to 
a  mockery.  Sir  George  Cox,  its  able  advocate,  fastens 
upon  the  admission  that  some  one  particular  method  is 
not  available  for  all  the  phenomena,  and  asks,  Why 
not  adopt  for  the  Greek  system,  for  the  Aryan  systems 
at  large,  perhaps  for  a  still  wider  range,  “  a  clear  and 
simple  explanation,”  namely,  the  solar  theory  ?  *  The 
plain  answer  to  the  question  is,  that  this  must  not  be 
done,  because,  if  it  is  done,  we  do  not  follow  the  facts, 
nor  are  led  by  them ;  but,  to  use  the  remarkable  phrase 
of  iEschylus,f  we  ride  them  down,  we  trample  them 
under  foot.  Mankind  has  long  been  too  familiar  with 
a  race  of  practitioners,  whom  courtesy  forbids  to  name, 
and  whose  single  medicine  is  alike  available  to  deal  with 
every  one  of  the  thousand  figures  of  disease.  There  are 
surely  many  sources  to  which  the  old  religions  are  refer¬ 
able.  We  have  solar  worship,  earth  worship,  astronomic 
worship,  the  worship  of  animals,  the  worship  of  evil 
powers,  the  worship  of  abstractions,  the  worship  of  the 

*  ‘Mythology  of  Aryan  Nations,’  i.  18. 

f  KadnrirdCeadaL :  a  remarkable  word,  as  applied  to  moral  subjects, 
found  in  the  ‘Eumenides’  only. 

4/ 


36 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


dead,  the  foul  and  polluting  worship  of  bodily  organs, 
so  widespread  in  the  world,  and  especially  in  the  East ; 
last,  but  not  least,  I  will  name  terminal  worship,  the 
remarkable  and  most  important  scheme  which  grew  up, 
perhaps  first  on  the  Nile,  in  connection  with  the  stones 
used  for  marking  boundaries,  which  finds  its  principal 
representative  in  the  god  Hermes,  and  which  is  very 
largely  traced  and  exhibited  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
work  of  M.  Dulaure  i:?  on  ancient  religions. 

But  none  of  these  circumstances  discredit  or  impair 
the  proof  that  in  the  Book,  of  which  Genesis  is  the 
opening  section,  there  is  conveyed  special  knowledge  to 
meet  the  special  need  everywhere  so  palpable  in  the 
state  and  history  of  our  race.  Far  indeed  am  I  from 
asserting  that  this  precious  gift,  or  that  any  process 
known  to  me,  disposes  of  all  the  problems,  either 
insoluble  or  unsolved,  by  which  we  are  surrounded ;  of 

“  tlie  burden  and  the  mystery 
Of  all  this  unintelligible  world.”  f 

But  I  own  my  surprise  not  only  at  the  fact,  but  at  the 
manner  in  which  in  this  day,  writers,  whose  name  is 
Legion,  unimpeached  in  character  and  abounding  in 
talent,  not  only  put  away  from  them,  but  cast  into 
shadow  or  into  the  very  gulf  of  negation  itself,  the  con¬ 
ception  of  a  Deity,  an  acting  and  a  ruling  Deity.  Of 
this  belief,  which  has  satisfied  the  doubts,  and  wiped 
away  the  tears,  and  found,  guidance  for  the  footsteps  of 
so  many  a  weary  wanderer  on  earth,  which  among  the 
best  and  greatest  of  our  race  has  been  so  cherished  by 
those  who  had  it,  and  so  longed  and  sought  for  by  those 

*  ‘  Histoire  abregee  de  differens  Cultes.’  Seconde  edition.  Paris,  1825. 

+  Wordsworth’s  ‘  Excursion.’ 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


37 


who  had  it  not,  we  might  suppose  that  if  at  length  we 
had  discovered  that  it  was  in  the  light  of  truth  unten¬ 
able,  that  the  accumulated  testimony  of  man  was  worth¬ 
less,  and  that  his  wisdom  was  but  folly,  yet  at  least  the 
decencies  of  mourning  would  be  vouchsafed  to  this  irre¬ 
parable  loss.  Instead  of  this,  it  is  with  a  joy  and  exul¬ 
tation  that  might  almost  recall  the  frantic  orgies  of  the 
Commune,  that  this,  at  least  at  first  sight  terrific  and 
overwhelming  calamity  is  accepted,  and  recorded  as  a 
gain.  One  recent,  and  in  many  ways,  respected  writer 
— a  woman  long  wont  to  unship  creed  as  sailors  dis¬ 
charge  excess  of  cargo  in  a  storm,  and  passing  at  length 
into  formal  atheism — rejoices  to  find  herself  on  the  open, 
free,  and  “  breezy  common  of  the  universe.”  Another, 
also  woman,  and  dealing  only  with  the  workings  and 
manifestations  of  God,  finds  *  in  the  theory  of  a  physical 
evolution  as  recently  developed  by  Mr.  Darwin,  and 
received  with  extensive  favour,  both  an  emancipation 
from  error  and  a  novelty  in  kind.  She  rejoices  to  think 
that  now  at  last  Darwin  “  shows  life  as  an  harmonious 
whole,  and  makes  the  future  stride  possible  by  means  of 
the  past  advance.”  Evolution,  that  is  physical  evolu¬ 
tion,  which  alone  is  in  view,  may  be  true  (like  the  solar 
theory),  may  be  delightful  and  wonderful,  in  its  right 
place  ;  but  are  we  really  to  understand  that  varieties 
of  animals  brought  about  through  domestication,  the 
wasting  of  organs  (for  instance,  the  tails  of  men)  by 
disuse,  that  natural  selection  and  the  survival  of  the 
fittest,  all  in  the  physical  order,  exhibit  to  us  the  great 
arcanum  of  creation,  the  sum  and  centre  of  life,  so  that 


*  I  do  not  quote  names,  but  I  refer  to  a  very  recent  article  in  one 
of  our  monthly  periodicals. 


38 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


mind  and  spirit  are  dethroned  from  their  old  supremacy 
are  no  longer  sovereign  by  right,  but  may  find  somewhere 
by  charity  a  place  assigned  them,  as  appendages,  perhaps 
only  as  excrescences,  of  the  material  creation  ?  I  con¬ 
tend  that  Evolution  in  its  highest  form  has  not  been  a 
thing  heretofore  unknown  to  history,  to  philosophy,  or 
to  theology.  I  contend  that  it  was  before  the  mind  of 
Saint  Paul  when  he  taught  that  in  the  fulness  of  time 
God  sent  forth  His  Son,  and  of  Eusebius,  when  he  wrote 
the  ‘  Preparation  for  the  Gospel,’  and  of  Augustine 
when  he  composed  the  ‘  City  of  God ;  ’  and,  beautiful 
and  splendid  as  are  the  lessons  taught  by  natural 
objects,  they  are,  for  Christendom  at  least,  indefinitely 
beneath  the  sublime  unfolding  of  the  great  drama  of 
human  action,  in  which,  through  long  ages,  Greece  was 
making  ready  a  language  and  an  intellectual  type,  and 
Rome  a  framework  of  order  and  an  idea  of  law,  such 
that  in  them  were  to  be  shaped  and  fashioned  the 
destinies  of  a  regenerated  world.  For  those  who 
believe  that  the  old  foundations  are  unshaken  still,  and 
that  the  fabric  built  upon  them  will  look  down  for  ages 
on  the  floating  wreck  of  many  a  modern  and  boastful 
theory,  it  is  difficult  to  see  anything  but  infatuation  in 
the  destructive  temperament  which  leads  to  the  notion 
that  to  substitute  a  blind  mechanism  for  the  hand  of 
God  in  the  affairs  of  life  is  to  enlarge  the  scope  of 
remedial  agency ;  that  to  dismiss  the  highest  of  all 
inspirations  is  to  elevate  the  strain  of  human  thought 
and  life ;  and  that  each  of  us  is  to  rejoice  that  our 
several  units  are  to  be  disintegrated  at  death  into 
“  countless  millions  of  organisms  ;  ”  for  such,  it  seems, 
is  the  latest  “  revelation  ”  delivered  from  the  fragile 
tripod  of  a  modern  Delphi.  Assuredly,  either  on  the 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.  39 

minds  of  those  who  believe,  or  else  on  the  minds  of 
those  who  after  this  fashion  disbelieve,  there  lies  some 
deep  judicial  darkness,  a  fog  of  darkness  that  may  be 
felt.  While  disbelief  in  the  eyes  of  faith  is  a  sore 
calamity,  this  kind  of  disbelief,  which  renounces  and 
repudiates  with  more  than  satisfaction  what  is  brightest 
and  best  in  the  inheritance  of  man,  is  astounding,  and 
might  be  deemed  incredible.  Nay,  some  will  say,  rather 
than  accept  the  flimsy  and  hollow  consolations  which 
it  makes  bold  to  offer,  might  we  not  go  back  to  solar 
adoration,  or,  with  Goethe,  to  the  hollows  of  Olympus  ? 

“  Wenn  die  Funke  spriiht, 

Wenn  die  Asche  gliiht, 

Eilen  wir  den  alten  Gdttern  zu.”  * 


NOTE. 

Hawarden  Castle,  Chester, 

July  11,  1886. 

Mr.  Gladstone  presents  his  compliments  to  the  Editor  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century,  and  requests,  with  reference  to  an  observation 
by  Professor  Huxley  on  Mr.  Gladstone’s  neglect  duly  to  consult  the 
works  of  Professor  Dana,  whom  he  had  cited,  that  the  Editor  will 
have  the  kindness  to  print  in  his  next  number  the  accompanying 
letter,  which  has  this  morning  been  sent  to  him  from  America. 

“  Rev.  Dr.  Sutherland, 

“My  dear  Sir, — I  do  not  know  that  in  my  letter  of 
yesterday,  in  which  I  referred  you  to  the  ‘  Bibliotheca  Sacra,’  I 
answered  directly  your  question,  and  hence  I  add  a  word  to  say 
that  I  agree  in  all  essential  points  with  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  believe 
that  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  and  Science  are  in  accord. 

“  Yours  very  truly, 

“James  D.  Dana. 

“Newliaven,  April  16,  1886.” 


*  ‘  Braut  von  Corinth.’ 


II. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS: 

A  PLEA  FOR  A  FAIR  TRIAL.* 

1885. 

Vous  avez  une  maniere  si  aimahle  d’annoncer  les  plus 
mauvaises  nouvelles ,  qyHelles  perdent  par  la  de  leurs 
desagremens.  So  wrote,  de  haut  en  has,  the  Duchess  of 
York  to  Beau  Brummell,  sixty  or  seventy  years  back  ;  f 
and  so  write  I,  de  has  en  haut,  to  the  two  very  eminent 
champions  who  have  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  of 
December  entered  appearances  on  behalf  of  Dr.  Reville’s 
‘  Prolegomenes,’  with  a  decisiveness  of  tone,  at  all  events, 
which  admits  of  no  mistake :  Professor  Huxley  and 
Professor  Max  Muller.  My  first  duty  is  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  in  both  cases  the  abundant  courtesy  and  indulgence 
with  which  I  am  personally  treated.  And  my  first 
thought  is  that,  where  even  disagreement  is  made  in  a 
manner  pleasant,  it  will  be  a  duty  to  search  and  see  if 
there  be  any  points  of  agreement  or  approximation, 
which  will  be  more  pleasant  still.  This  indulgence  and 
courtesy  deserves  in  the  case  of  Professor  Huxley  a 
special  warmth  of  acknowledgment,  because,  while  thus 
more  than  liberal  to  the  individual,  he  has  for  the  class 


*  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
f  ‘  Life/  by  Jesse.  Revised  edition,  i.  260. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


41 


of  Reconcilers,  in  which  he  places  me,  an  unconcealed 
and  unmeasured  scorn.  These  are  they  who  impose 
upon  man  a  burden  of  false  science  in  the  name  of 
religion ,  who  dictate  as  a  Divine  command  “an  implicit 
belief  in  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis;”  and  who  “stir 
unwisdom  and  fanaticism  to  their  depths.”  Judgments 
so  severe  should  surely  be  supported  by  citation  or  other 
evidence,  for  which  I  look  in  vain.  To  some  they  might 
suggest  the  idea  that  Passion  may  sometimes  unawares 
intrude  even  within  the  precincts  of  the  temple  of 
Science.  But  I  admit  that  a  great  master  of  his  art 
may  well  be  provoked,  when  he  finds  his  materials 
tumbled  about  by  incapable  hands,  and  may  mistake  for 
irreverence  what  is  only  want  of  skill. 

While  acknowledging  the  great  courtesy  with  which 
Professor  Huxley  treats  his  antagonist  individually,  and 
while  simply  listening  to  his  denunciations  of  the  Re¬ 
concilers  as  one  listens  to  distant  thunders,  with  a  sort 
of  sense  that  after  all  they  will  do  no  great  harm,  I 
must  presume  to  animadvert  with  considerable  freedom 
upon  his  method  ;  upon  the  sweeping  character  of  his 
advocacy  ;  upon  his  perceptible  exaggeration  of  points  in 
controversy  ;  upon  his  mode  of  dealing  with  authorities  ; 
and  upon  the  curious  fallacy  of  substitution  by  which 
he  enables  himself  to  found  the  widest  proscriptions  of 
the  claim  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  to  contain  a  Divine 
record  upon  a  reasoned  impeachment  of  its  scientific 
accuracy  in,  as  I  shall  show,  a  single  particular. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  topics,  nothing  can  be  more 
equitable  than  Professor  Huxley’s  intention  to  intervene 
as  a  “science  proctor  ”  in  that  part  of  the  debate  raised 


*  Nineteenth  Century ,  Dec.  1885,  pp.  859,  860. 


42 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


by  M.  Reville,  “  to  which  he  proposes  to  restrict  his 
observations  ”  (N.  C.  p.  849).  This  is  the  part  on  which 
he  proposes  in  his  first  page  to  report  as  a  student — and 
every  reader  will  inwardly  add,  as  one  of  the  most 
eminent  among  all  students — of  natural  science.  Now 
this  is  not  the  cosmogonical  part  of  the  account  in 
Genesis.  On  Gen.  i.  1-19,  containing  the  cosmogony, 
he  does  not  report  as  an  expert,  bu.t  refers  us  (p.  859)  to 
“  those  who  are  specially  conversant  with  the  sciences 
involved  ;  ”  adding  his  opinion  about  their  opinion. 
Yet  in  his  second  page,  without  making  any  reference 
to  this  broad  distinction,  he  at  once  forgets  the  just 
limitation  of  his  first,  and  our  “proctor  for  science” 
pronounces  on  M.  Reville’s  estimate,  not  of  the  fourfold 
succession  in  the  stratification  of  the  earth,  but  of  “  the 
account  of  the  Creation  given  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,” 
that  its  terms  are  as  “  respectful  as  in  his  judgment 
they  are  just  ”  (ibid.).  Thus  the  proctorship  for  science, 
justly  assumed  for  matters  within  his  province  as  a 
student,  is  rather  hastily  extended  to  matters  which  he 
himself  declares  to  be  beyond  it.  In  truth  it  will  appear, 
that  as  there  are  many  roads  to  heaven  with  one  ending, 
so,  provided  only  a  man  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that 
the  great  Proem  of  Genesis  lends  no  support  to  the 
argument  for  Revelation,  it  does  not  much  matter  how 
he  gets  there.  For  in  this  “just”  account  of  the 
Creation  I  have  shown  that  M.  Reville  supports  his 
accusation  of  scientific  error  by  three  particulars  (N.  C. 
p.  639)  :  that  in  the  first  he  contradicts  the  judgment 
of  scholars  on  the  sense  of  the  original ;  in  the  second 
he  both  misquotes  (by  inadvertence)  the  terms  of  the 
text,  and  overlooks  the  distinction  made  so  palpable  (if 
not  earlier)  half  a  century  ago,  by  the  work  of  Dr, 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


43 


Buckland,*  between  bara  and  asa ;  while  the  third 
proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  there  could  be  no  light 
to  produce  vegetation,  except  light  derived  from  a  visible 
sun.  These  three  charges  constitute  the  head  and  front 
of  M.  Reville’s  indictment  against  the  cosmogony ;  and 
the  fatal  flaws  in  them,  without  any  notice  or  defence, 
are  now  all  taken  under  the  mantle  of  our  science 
proctor,  who  returns  to  the  charge  at  the  close  of  his 
article  (p.  859),  and  again  dismisses  with  comprehensive 
honour  as  “  wise  and  moderate  ”  what  he  had  ushered  in 
as  reverent  and  just.  So  much  for  the  sweeping,  un¬ 
discriminating  character  of  an  advocacy  which,  in  a 
scientific  writer,  we  might  perhaps  have  expected  to  be 
carefully  limited  and  defined ;  and  which  does  not  seem 
to  belong  to  science-proctorship. 

I  take  next  the  exaggeration  which  appears  to  me 
to  mark  unhappily  Professor  Huxley’s  method.  Under 
this  head  I  include  all  needless  multiplication  of  points 
of  controversy,  whether  in  the  form  of  overstating  dif¬ 
ferences,  or  understating  agreements,  with  an  adversary. 

As  I  have  lived  for  more  than  half  a  century  in  an 
atmosphere  of  contention,  my  stock  of  controversial  fire 
has  perhaps  become  abnormally  low ;  while  Professor 
Huxley,  who  has  been  inhabiting  the  Elysian  regions 
of  science,  the  edita  doctrind  sapientum  templet  serena, f 
may  be  enjoying  all  the  freshness  of  an  unjaded  appetite. 
Certainly  one  of  the  lessons  life  has  taught  me  is,  that 
where  there  is  known  to  be  a  common  object,  the  pur¬ 
suit  of  truth,  there  should  also  be  a  studious  desire  to 
interpret  the  adversary  in  the  best  sense  his  words  will 

*  ‘Bridgewater  Treatise/ vol.  i.  pp.  19-28.  Chap.  i. :  “Consistency 
of  Geological  Discoveries  with  Sacred  History.” 

f  Lucr.  ii.  8. 


44 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


fairly  bear ;  to  avoid  whatever  widens  the  breach ; 
and  to  make  the  most  of  whatever  tends  to  narrow  it. 
These  I  hold  to  be  part  of  the  laws  of  knightly  tourna¬ 
ment. 

I  do  not,  therefore,  fully  understand  why  Professor 
Huxley  makes  it  a  matter  of  objection  to  me  that,  in 
rebuking  a  writer  who  had  treated  evolution  wholesale 
as  a  novelty  in  the  world,  I  cited  a  few  old  instances 
of  moral  and  historical  evolution  only,  and  did  not 
extend  my  front  by  examining  Indian  sages  and  the 
founders  of  Greek  philosophy  (W.  G.  p.  854).  Nor  why, 
when  I  have  spoken  of  physical  evolution  as  of  a  thing 
to  me  most  acceptable,  but  not  yet  in  its  rigour  (to  my 
knowledge)  proved  (JV.  C.  p.  705),  we  have  only  the 
rather  niggardly  acknowledgment  that  I  have  made 
“  the  most  oblique  admissions  of  a  possible  value  ” 
(JY.  0.  p.  854).  Thus  it  is  when  agreement  is  threat¬ 
ened,  but  far  otherwise  when  differences  are  to  be 
blazoned.  When  I  have  spoken  of  the  succession  of 
orders  in  the  most  general  terms  only,  this  is  declared 
to  be  a  sharply  divided  succession  in  which  the  last 
species  of  one  cannot  overlap  the  first  species  of  another 
(p.  857).  When  I  have  pleaded  on  simple  grounds  of 
reasoning  for  the  supposition  of  a  substantial  corre¬ 
spondence  between  Genesis  i.  and  science  (i\r.  C.  p.  696), 
have  waived  all  question  of  a  verbal  inspiration,  all 
question  whether  the  whole  of  the  statements  can  now 
be  made  good  (i\7.  C.  p.  694),  I  am  treated  as  one  of 
those  who  impose  “  in  the  name  of  religion”  as  a  divine 
requisition  “  an  implicit  belief  in  the  accuracy  of  the 
cosmogony  of  Genesis,”  and  who  deserve  to  have  their 
heads  broken  in  consequence  (AT.  C.  p.  860). 

I  have  urged  nothing  “  in  the  name  of  religion.”  I 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


45 


have  sought  to  adduce  probable  evidence  that  a  guidance 
more  than  human  lies  within  the  great  Proem  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis  (JY.  G.  p.  694),  just  as  I  might  adduce 
probable  evidence  to  show  that  Francis  did  or  did  not 
write  Junius,  that  William  the  Third  was  or  was  not 
responsible  for  the  massacre  of  Glencoe.  I  have  ex¬ 
pressly  excepted  detail  (p.  696),  and  have  stated  (JV.  G. 
p.  687)  that  in  my  inquiry  “the  authority  of  Scripture 
cannot  be  alleged  in  proof  of  a  primitive  revelation  ” 
(N.  C.  p.  687).  I  object  to  all  these  exaggerations  of 
charge,  as  savouring  of  the  spirit  of  the  Inquisition,  and 
as  restraints  on  literary  freedom. 

My  next  observation  as  to  the  Professor’s  method 
refers  to  his  treatment  of  authorities. 

In  one  passage  (JV.  C.  p.  851)  Mr.  Huxley  expresses 
his  regret  that  I  have  not  named  my  authority  for  the 
statement  made  concerning  the  fourfold  succession,  in 
order  that  he  might  have  transferred  his  attentions  from 
myself  to  a  new  delinquent.  Now,  published  works  are 
(as  I  may  show)  a  fair  subject  for  reference.  But  as  to 
pointing  out  any  person  who  might  have  favoured  me 
with  his  views  in  private  correspondence,  I  own  that  I 
should  have  some  scruple  in  handing  him  over  to  be 
pilloried  as  a  Reconciler,  and  to  be  pelted  with  charges 
of  unwisdom  and  fanaticism,  which  I  myself,  from  long 
use,  am  perfectly  content  to  bear. 

I  did  refer  to  three  great  and  famous  names  :  those 
of  Cuvier,  Sir  John  Herschel,  and  Whewell  (JV.  G. 
p.  697).  Mr.  Huxley  speaks  of  me  as  having  quoted 
them  in  support  of  my  case  on  the  fourfold  succession ; 
and  at  the  same  time  notices  that  I  admitted  Cuvier 
not  to  be  a  recent  authority,  which  in  geology  proper 
is,  I  believe,  nearly  equivalent  to  saying  he  is,  for 


46 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


particulars,  no  authority  at  all.  This  recital  is  singu¬ 
larly  inaccurate.  I  cited  them  (iV.  C.  p.  697),  not  with 
reference  to  the  fourfold  succession,  but  generally  for 
“the  general  accordance  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony 
with  the  results  of  modern  inquiry  ”  (ibid.),  and  parti¬ 
cularly  in  connection  with  the  nebular  hypothesis.  It 
is  the  cosmogony  (Gen.  i.  1-19),  not  the  fourfold  suc¬ 
cession,  which  was  the  sole  object  of  Reville’s  attack, 
and  the  main  object  of  my  defence ;  and  which  is 
the  largest  portion  of  the  whole  subject.  Will  Mr. 
Huxley  venture  to  say  that  Cuvier  is  an  unavailable 
authority,  or  that  Herschel  and  Whewell  are  other  than 
great  and  venerable  names,  with  reference  to  the  cos¬ 
mogony?  Yet  he  has  quietly  set  them  aside  without 
notice ;  and  they  with  many  more  are  inclusively  be¬ 
spattered  with  the  charges,  which  he  has  launched 
against  the  pestilent  tribe  of  Reconcilers. 

My  fourth  and  last  observation  on  the  “method  ”  of 
Professor  Huxley  is  that,  after  discussing  a  part,  and 
that  not  the  most  considerable  part,  of  the  Proem  of 
Genesis,  he  has  broadly  pronounced  upon  the  whole. 
This  is  a  mode  of  reasoning  which  logic  rejects,  and 
which  I  presume  to  savour  more  of  licence  than  of 
science.  The  fourfold  succession  is  condemned  with 
argument ;  the  cosmogony  is  thrown  into  the  bargain. 
True,  Mr.  Huxley  refers  in  a  single  sentence  to  three 
detached  points  of  it  partially  touched  in  my  observa¬ 
tions  (p.  853).  But  all  my  argument,  the  chief  argu¬ 
ment  of  my  paper,  leads  up  to  the  nebular  or  rotatory 
hypothesis  (N.  G.  689-694  and  697,  698).  This  hypo¬ 
thesis,  with  the  authorities  cited — of  whom  one  is  the 
author  of  ‘  Y estiges  of  the  Creation  ’ — is  inclusively 
condemned,  and  without  a  word  vouchsafed  to  it. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


47 


I  shall  presently  express  my  gratitude  for  the  scien¬ 
tific  part  of  Mr.  Huxley’s  paper.  But  there  are  two 
sides  to  the  question.  The  whole  matter  at  issue  is,  (1) 
a  comparison  between  the  probable  meaning  of  the 
Proem  to  Genesis  and  the  results  of  cosmological  and 
geological  science ;  (2)  the  question  whether  this  com¬ 
parison  favours  or  does  not  favour  the  belief  that  an 
element  of  divine  knowledge — knowledge  which  was  not 
accessible  to  the  simple  action  of  the  human  faculties — 
is  conveyed  to  us  in  this  Proem.  It  is  not  enough  to  be 
accurate  in  one  term  of  a  comparison,  unless  we  are 
accurate  in  both.  A  master  of  English  may  speak  the 
vilest  and  most  blundering  French.  I  do  not  think  Mr. 
Huxley  has  even  endeavoured  to  understand  what  is  the 
idea,  what  is  the  intention,  which  his  opponent  ascribes 
to  the  Mosaic  writer  :  or  what  is  the  conception  which 
his  opponent  forms  of  the  weighty  word  Revelation. 
He  holds  the  writer  responsible  for  scientific  precision  : 
I  look  for  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  assign  to  him  a 
statement  general,  which  admits  exceptions  ;  popular, 
which  aims  mainly  at  producing  moral  impression ; 
summary,  which  cannot  but  be  open  to  more  or  less  of 
criticism  in  detail.  He  thinks  it  is  a  lecture.  I  think 
it  is  nearer  to  a  sermon.  He  describes  living  creatures 
by  structure.  The  Mosaic  writer  describes  them  by 
habitat.  Both  I  suppose  are  right.  I  suppose  that 
description  by  habitat  would  be  unavailing  for  the 
purposes  of  science.  I  feel  sure  that  description  by 
structure,  such  as  the  geologists  supply,  would  have 
been  unavailing  for  the  purpose  of  summary  teaching 
with  religious  aim.  Of  Revelation  I  will  speak  by- 
and-by. 

In  order  to  institute  with  profit  the  comparison,  now 


48 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


in  view,  the  very  first  thing  necessary  is  to  determine, 
so  far  as  the  subject-matter  allows,  what  it  was  that  the 
Pentateuchal  or  Mosaic  writer  designed  to  convey  to 
the  minds  of  those  for  whom  he  wrote.  The  case  is,  in 
more  ways  than  one,  I  conceive,  the  direct  reverse  of 
that  which  the  Professor  has  alleged.  It  is  not  bringing 
Science  to  be  tried  at  the  bar  of  Religion.  It  is  bring¬ 
ing  Religion,  so  far  as  it  is  represented  by  this  part  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  be  tried  at  the  bar  of  Science. 
The  indictment  against  the  Pentateuchal  writer  is,  that 
he  has  written  what  is  scientifically  untrue.  We  have 
to  find,  then,  in  the  first  place,  what  it  is  that  he  has 
written,  according  to  the  text,  not  an  inerrable  text,  as 
it  now  stands  before  us. 

First,  I  assume  there  is  no  dispute  that  in  Gen.  i. 
20-27  he  has  represented  a  fourfold  sequence  or  succes¬ 
sion  of  living  organisms.  Aware  of  my  own  inability 
to  define  in  any  tolerable  manner  the  classes  of  these 
organisms,  I  resorted  to  the  general  phrases — water- 
population,  air -population,  land-population.  The  imme¬ 
diate  purpose  of  these  phrases  was  not  to  correspond 
with  the  classifications  of  Science,  but  to  bring  together 
in  brief  and  convenient  form  the  larger  and  more  varied 
modes  of  expression  used  in  vers.  20,  21,  24,  25  of  the 
Chapter. 

I  think,  however,  I  have  been  to  blame  for  having 
brought  into  a  contact  with  science,  which  was  not 
sufficiently  defined,  terms  that  have  no  scientific  mean¬ 
ing  :  water-population,  air-population,  and  (twofold) 
land-population.  I  shall  now  discard  them,  and  shall 
substitute  others,  which  have  the  double  advantage  of 
being  used  by  geologists,  and  perhaps  of  expressing 
better  than  my  phrases  what  was  in  the  mind  of  the 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


49 


Mosaic  writer.  These  are  the  words — 1,  fishes ;  2, 
birds ;  3,  mammals  ;  *  4,  man.  By  all,  I  think,  it  will 
be  felt  that  the  first  object  is  to  know  what  the  Penta- 
teuchal  writer  means.  The  relation  of  his  meaning  to 
science  is  essential,  but,  in  orderly  argumentation, 
subsequent.  The  matter  now  before  us  is  a  matter  of 
reasonable  and  probable  interpretation.  What  is  the 
proper  key  to  this  hermeneutic  work  ?  In  my  opinion 
it  is  to  be  found  in  a  just  estimate  of  the  purpose  with 
which  the  author  wrote,  and  with  which  the  Book  of 
Genesis  was,  in  this  part  of  it,  either  composed  or 
compiled. 

If  this  be  the  true  point  of  departure,  it  opens  up  a 
question  of  extreme  interest,  at  which  I  have  but  faintly 
glanced  in  my  paper,  and  which  is  nowhere  touched  in 
the  reply  to  me.  What  proper  place  has  such  a  compo¬ 
sition  as  the  first  Chapter  of  Genesis  in  such  a  work  as 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  1  They  are  indis¬ 
putably  written  with  a  religious  aim  ;  and  their  subject- 
matter  is  religious.  We  may  describe  this  aim  in 
various  ways.  For  the  present  purpose,  suffice  it  to  say 
they  are  conversant  with  belief  in  God,  with  inculcation 
of  duties  founded  on  that  belief,  with  history  and  pro¬ 
phecy  obviously  having  it  for  their  central  point.  But 
this  chapter,  at  the  least  down  to  ver.  25,  and  perhaps 
throughout,  stands  on  a  different  ground.  In  concise 
and  rapid  outline,  it  traverses  a  vast  region  of  physics. 
It  is  easy  to  understand  St.  Paul  when  he  speaks  of 
the  world  as  bearing  witness  to  God.f  What  he  said 

*  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  speaking  here  of  the  higher  or  ordinary 
mammals,  which  alone  I  assume  to  have  been  probably  known  to  the 
Mosaic  writer. 

f  Acts  xiv.  17  ;  Rom.  i.  20. 

I. 


E 


50 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


was  capable  of  being  verified  or  tested  by  the  common 
experimental  knowledge  of  all  who  heard  him.  Of  it,  of 
our  Saviour’s  mention  of  the  lilies — and  may  it  not  be 
said  generally  of  the  references  in  Scripture  to  natural 
knowledge  ? — they  are  at  once  accounted  for  by  the 
positions  in  which  they  stand.  But  this  first  Chapter 
of  Genesis  professes  to  set  out  in  its  own  way  a  large 
and  comprehensive  scheme  of  physical  facts  :  the  transi¬ 
tion  from  chaos  to  kosmos,  from  the  inanimate  to  life, 
from  life  in  its  lower  orders  to  man.  Being  knowledge 
of  an  order  anterior  to  the  creation  of  Adamic  man,  it 
was  beyond  verification,  as  being  beyond  experience.  As 
a  physical  exposition  in  miniature,  it  stands  alone  in  the 
Sacred  Becord.  And,  as  this  singular  composition  is 
solitary  in  the  Bible,  so  it  seems  to  be  hardly  less  solitary 
in  the  sacred  books  of  the  world.  “  The  only  important 
resemblance  of  any  ancient  cosmogony  to  the  Scriptural 
account,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Persian  or  Zoroastrian  :  ” 
this  Bishop  Browne *  proceeds  to  account  for  on  the 
following  among  other  grounds  :  that  Zoroaster  was 
probably  brought  into  contact  with  the  Hebrews,  and 
even  perhaps  with  the  prophet  Daniel ;  a  supposition 
which  supplies  the  groundwork  of  a  recent  and  remark¬ 
able  romance,  not  proceeding  from  a  Christian  school,  f 
Again,  the  Proem  does  not  carry  any  Egyptian  marks. 
In  the  twenty-seven  thousand  lines  of  Homer,  archaic 
as  they  are  and  ever  turning  to  the  past,  there  is,  I 
think,  only  one  J  which  belongs  to  physiology.  The 
beautiful  sketch  of  a  cosmogony  by  Ovid  §  seems  in 


*  Note  on  Gen.  i.  5. 

t  ‘Zoroaster.’  By  F.  M.  Crawford.  Macmillan,  1885. 
X  ‘  11.’  vii.  99.  §  Ovid,  ‘  Metam.’  i.  1-38. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


51 


considerable  degree  to  follow  the  Mosaic  outline  ;  but  it 
was  composed  at  a  time  when  the  treasure  of  the  Hebrew 
records  had  been  for  two  centuries  imparted,  through 
the  Septuagint,  to  the  Aryan  nations. 

Professor  Huxley,  if  I  understand  him  rightly  (A.  C. 
pp.  851,  852),  considers  the  Mosaic  writer,  not  perhaps  as 
having  intended  to  embrace  the  whole  truth  of  science 
in  the  province  of  geology,  but  at  least  as  liable  to  be 
convicted  of  scientific  worthlessness  if  his  language  will 
not  stand  the  test  of  a  strict  construction.  Thus  the 
“  water-population  ”  is  to  include  “  the  innumerable 
hosts  of  marine  invertebrated  animals.”  It  seems  to 
me  that  these  discoveries,  taken  as  a  whole,  and  also 
taken  in  all  their  parts  and  particulars,  do  not  afford 
a  proper,  I  mean  a  rational,  standard  for  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  Mosaic  writer  ;  that  the  recent  discovery  of 
the  Silurian  scorpion,  a  highly  organised  animal  (p.  858), 
is  of  little  moment  either  way  to  the  question  now 
before  us  ;  *  that  it  is  not  an  account  of  the  extinct 
species  which  we  should  consider  the  Mosaic  writer  as 
intending  to  convey ;  that  while  his  words  are  capable 
of  covering  them,  as  the  oikoumene  of  the  New  Testament 
covers  the  red  and  yellow  man,  the  rules  of  rational 
construction  recommend  and  require  our  assigning  to 
them  a  more  limited  meaning,  which  I  will  presently 
describe. 

Another  material  point  in  Professor  Huxley’s  inter¬ 
pretation  appears  to  me  to  lie  altogether  beyond  the 
natural  force  of  the  words,  and  to  be  of  an  arbitrary 


*  Because  my  argument  in  no  way  requires  universal  accordance, 
what  bearing  the  scorpion  may  have  on  any  current  scientific 
hypothesis,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say. 


52 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


character.  He  includes  in  it  the  proposition  that  the 
production  of  the  respective  orders  was  effected  (p.  857) 
during  each  of  “  three  distinct  and  successive  periods  of 
time ;  and  only  during  those  periods  of  time  ;  ”  or  again, 
in  one  of  these,  “  and  not  at  any  other  of  these ;  ”  as,  in 
a  series  of  games  at  chess,  one  is  done  before  another 
begins ;  or  as  in  a  “  march-past,”  one  regiment  goes 
before  another  comes.  No  doubt  there  may  be  a  degree 
of  literalism  which  will  even  suffice  to  show  that,  as 
“  every  winged  fowl  ”  was  produced  on  the  fourth  day 
of  the  Hexaemeron,  therefore  the  birth  of  new  fowls 
continually  is  a  contradiction  to  the  text  of  Genesis. 
But  does  not  the  equity  of  common  sense  require  us 
to  understand  simply  that  the  order  of  “  winged  fowl,” 
whatever  that  may  mean,  took  its  place  in  creation  at 
a  certain  time,  and  that  from  that  time  its  various 
component  classes  were  in  course  of  production?  Is  it 
not  the  fact  that  in  synoptical  statements  of  successive 
events,  distributed  in  time  for  the  sake  of  producing 
easy  and  clear  impressions,  general  truth  is  aimed  at, 
and  periods  are  allowed  to  overlap?  If,  with  such  a 
view,  we  arrange  the  schools  of  Greek  philosophy  in 
numerical  order,  according  to  the  dates  of  their  incep¬ 
tion,  we  do  not  mean  that  one  expired  before  another 
was  founded.  If  the  archaeologist  describes  to  us 
as  successive  in  time  the  ages  of  stone,  bronze,  and  iron,  * 
he  certainly  does  not  mean  that  no  kinds  of  stone 


*  I  use  this  enumeration  to  illustrate  an  argument,  but  I  must, 
even  in  so  using  it,  enter  a  caveat  against  its  particulars.  I  do  not 
conceive  it  to  be  either  probable  or  historical  that,  as  a  general  rule, 
mankind  passed  from  the  use  of  stone  implements  to  the  use  of  bronze, 
a  composite  metal,  without  passing  through  some  intermediate  (whether 
longer  or  shorter)  period  of  copper. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


53 


implement  were  invented  after  bronze  began,  or  no  kinds 
of  bronze  after  iron  began.  When  Thucydides  said 
that  the  ancient  limited  monarchies  were  succeeded  by 
tyrannies,  he  did  not  mean  that  all  the  monarchs  died  at 
once,  and  a  set  of  tyrants,  like  Deucalion’s  men,  rose  up 
and  took  their  places.  Woe  be,  I  should  say,  to  anyone 
who  tries  summarily  to  present  in  series  the  phases  of 
ancient  facts,  if  they  are  to  be  judged  under  the  rule  of 
Professor  Huxley. 

Proceeding,  on  what  I  hold  to  be  open  ground,  to 
state  my  own  idea  of  the  true  key  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Mosaic  record,  I  suggest  that  it  was  intended  to 
give  moral,  and  not  scientific,  instruction  to  those  for 
whom  it  was  written.  That  for  the  Adamic  race,  recent 
on  the  earth,  and  young  in  faculties,  the  traditions  here 
incorporated,  which  were  probably  far  older  than  the 
Book,  had  a  natural  and  a  highly  moral  purpose  in 
conveying  to  their  minds  a  lively  sense  of  the  wise  and 
loving  care  with  which  the  Almighty  Father,  who 
demanded  much  at  their  hands,  had  beforehand  given 
them  much,  in  the  provident  adaptation  of  the  world  to 
be  their  dwelling-place,  and  of  the  created  orders  for 
their  use  and  rule.  It  appears  to  me  that,  given  the 
very  nature  of  the  Scriptures,  this  is  clearly  the  rational 
point  of  view.  If  it  is  so,  then,  it  follows,  that  just  as 
the  tradition  described  earth,  air,  and  heaven  in  the 
manner  in  which  they  superficially  presented  themselves 
to  the  daily  experience  of  man — not  scientifically,  but 

“  The  common  air,  the  sun,  the  skies  ” — - 

so  he  spoke  of  fishes,  of  birds,  of  beasts,  of  what  man 
was  most  concerned  with ;  and,  last  in  the  series,  of 
man  himself,  largely  and  generally,  as  facts  of  his 


54 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


experience ;  from  which  great  moral  lessons  of  wonder, 
gratitude,  and  obedience  were  to  be  deduced,  to  aid  him 
in  the  great  work  of  his  life-training.'" 

If  further  proof  be  wanting,  that  what  the  Mosaic 
writer  had  in  his  mind  were  the  creatures  with  which 
Adamic  man  was  conversant,  we  have  it  in  the  direct 
form  of  ver.  28,  which  gives  to  man  for  meat  the  fruit 
of  every  seed-yielding  tree,  and  every  seed-yielding  herb, 
and  the  dominion  of  every  beast,  fowl,  and  reptile  living. 
There  is  here  a  marked  absence  of  reference  to  any  but 
the  then  living  species. 

This,  then,  is  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  Book, 
and  of  the  tradition,  if,  as  1  suppose,  it  was  before  the 
Book,  which  seems  to  me  to  offer  the  most  probable, 
and  therefore  the  rational  guide  to  its  interpretation. 
The  question  we  shall  have  to  face  is  whether  this  state¬ 
ment  so  understood,  this  majestic  and  touching  lesson 
of  the  childhood  of  Adamic  man,  stands  in  such  a;  relation 
to  scientific  truth,  in  the  forms  in  which  it  is  now  known, 
as  to  give  warrant  to  the  inference  that  the  guidance 
under  which  it  was  composed  was  more  than  that  of 
faculties  merely  human,  at  that  stage  of  development, 
and  likewise  of  information,  which  belonged  to  the  child¬ 
hood  of  humanity. 

We  have,  then,  before  us  one  term  of  the  desired 
comparison.  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  other. 

And  here  my  first  duty  is  to  render  my  grateful 
thanks  to  Professor  Huxley  for  having  corrected  my 
either  erroneous  or  superannuated  assumption  as  to  the 
state  of  scientific  opinion  on  the  second  and  third  terms 


*  See  also  my  *  General  Introduction  to  Sheppard’s  Pictorial  Bible,’ 
infra. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


55 

of  the  fourfold  succession  of  life.  As  one  probable 
doctor  sufficed  to  make  an  opinion  probable,  so  the 
dissent  of  this  eminent  man  would  of  itself  overthrow 
and  pulverise  my  proposition  that  there  was  a  scientific 
consensus  as  to  a  sequence  like  that  of  Genesis  in  the 
production  of  animal  life,  as  between  fishes,  birds, 
mammals,  and  man.  I  shall  compare  the  text  of  Genesis 
with  geological  statements ;  but  shall  make  no  attempt, 
unless  this  be  an  attempt,  to  profit  by  a  consensus  of 
geologists.  * 

I  suppose  it  to  be  admitted  on  all  hands  that  no 
perfectly  comprehensive  and  complete  correspondence 
can  be  established  between  the  terms  of  the  Mosaic  text 
and  modern  discovery.  No  one,  for  instance,  could 
conclude  from  it  that  which  appears  to  be  generally 
recognised,  that  a  great  reptile- age  would  be  revealed 
by  the  mesozoic  rocks. 

Yet  I  think  readers,  who  have  been  swept  away  by 
the  torrent  of  Mr.  Huxley’s  denunciations,  will  feel  some 
surprise  when  on  drawing  summarily  into  line  the  main 
allegations,  and  especially  this  ruling  order  of  the  Proem, 
they  see  how  small  a  part  of  them  is  brought  into 
question  by  Mr.  Huxley,  and  to  how  large  an  extent 
they  are  favoured  by  the  tendencies,  presumptions,  and 
even  conclusions  of  scientific  inquiry. 

First,  as  to  the  cosmogony,  or  the  formation  of  the 
earth  and  the  heavenly  bodies — 

1.  The  first  operation  recorded  in  Genesis,  after  the 
creative  act,  appears  to  be  the  formation  of  light.  It 


*  With  regard,  however,  to  the  counter-statement  of  Mr.  Huxley, 
see  the  letter  of  Mr.  Dana  (appended  supra )  to  the  ‘  Dawn  of 
Creation.’ 


56 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


is  detached,  apparently,  from  the  waste  or  formless 
elemental  mass  (vers.  2-5),  which,  as  it  proceeds,  is  left 
relatively  dark  by  its  withdrawal. 

2.  Next  we  hear  of  the  existence  of  vapour,  and  of 
its  condensation  into  water  on  the  surface  of  the  earth 
(vers.  6-10).  Vegetation  subsequently  begins  :  but  this 
belongs  rather  to  geology  than  to  cosmogony  (vers. 
11,  12). 

3.  In  a  new  period,  the  heavenly  bodies  are  declared 
to  be  fully  formed  and  visible,  dividing  the  day  from 
the  night  (vers.  14-18). 

Under  the  guidance  particularly  of  Dr.  Whewell,  I 
have  referred  to  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  confirmatory 
of  this  account. 

Mr.  Huxley  has  not  either  denied  the  hypothesis,  or 
argued  against  it.  But  I  turn  to  Phillips’s  ‘  Manual  of 
Geology,’  edited  and  adapted  by  Mr.  Seeley  and  Mr. 
Etheridge  (1885).  It  has  a  section  in  vol.  i.  (pp.  15-19) 
on  “  Modern  Speculations  concerning  the  Origin  of  the 
Earth.” 

The  first  agent  here  noticed  as  contributing  to  the 
work  of  production  is  the  “  gas  hydrogen  in  a  burning 
state,”  which  now  forms  the  enveloping  portion  of  the 
sun’s  atmosphere  ;  whence  we  are  told  the  inference 
arises  that  the  earth  also  was  once  u  incandescent  at  its 
surface,”  and  that  its  rocks  may  have  been  “  products  of 
combustion.”  Is  not  this  representation  of  light  with 
heat  for  its  ally,  as  the  first  element  in  this  Speculation, 
remarkably  accordant  with  the  opening  of  the  Proem  to 
Genesis  ? 

Next  it  appears  (ibid.)  that  “the  product  of  this 
combustion  is  vapour,”  which  with  diminished  heat 
condenses  into  water,  and  eventually  accumulates  “  in 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


57 


depressions  on  the  sun’s  surface  so  as  to  form  oceans  and 
seas.”  “It  is  at  least  probable  that  the  earth  has 
passed  through  a  phase  of  this  kind”  (ibid.).  “The 
other  planets  are  apparently  more  or  less  like  the  earth 
in  possessing  atmospheres  and  seas.”  Is  there  not  here 
a  remarkable  concurrence  with  the  second  great  act  of 
the  cosmogony  ? 

Plainly,  as  I  conceive,  it  is  agreeable  to  these  sup¬ 
positions  that,  as  vapour  gradually  passes  into  water, 
and  the  atmosphere  is  cleared,  the  full  adaptation  of 
sun  and  moon  by  visibility  for  their  functions  should 
come  in  due  sequence,  as  it  comes  in  Gen.  i.  14-18. 

Pursuing  its  subject,  the  ‘Manual’  proceeds  (p.  17)  : 
“  This  consideration  leads  up  to  what  has  been  called 
the  nebular  hypothesis,”  which  “supposes  that,  before 
the  stars  existed,  the  materials  of  which  they  consist 
were  diffused  in  the  heavens  in  a  state  of  vapour  ” 
{ibid.).  The  text  then  proceeds  to  describe  how  local 
centres  of  condensation  might  throw  off  rings,  these 
rings  break  into  planets,  and  the  planets,  under  con¬ 
ditions  of  sufficient  force,  repeat  the  process,  and  thus 
produce  satellites  like  those  of  Saturn,  or  like  the 
Moon. 

I  therefore  think  that,  so  far  as  cosmogony  is  con¬ 
cerned,  the  effect  of  Mr.  Huxley’s  paper  is  not  by  any 
means  to  leave  it  as  it  was,  but  to  leave  it  materially 
fortified  by  the  ‘  Manual  of  Geology,’  which  I  under¬ 
stand  to  be  a  standard  of  authority  at  the  present  time. 

Turning  now  to  the  region  of  that  science,  I  under¬ 
stand  the  main  statements  of  Genesis,  in  successive 
order  of  time,  but  without  any  measurement  of  its 
divisions,  to  be  as  follows  : — 

1.  A  period  of  land,  anterior  to  all  life  (vers.  9,  10). 


58 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 

2.  A  period  of  vegetable  life,  anterior  to  animal  life 
(vers.  11,  12). 

3.  A  period  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  fishes 
(ver.  20). 

4.  Another  stage  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  birds  A 

5.  Another,  in  the  order  of  beasts  (vers.  24,  25). 

6.  Last  of  all,  man  (vers.  26,  27). 

Here  is  a  chain  of  six  links,  attached  to  a  previous 
chain  of  three.  And  I  think  it  not  a  little  remarkable 
that  of  this  entire  succession,  the  only  step  directly 
challenged  is  that  of  numbers  four  and  five,  which 
(p.  858)  Mr.  Huxley  is  inclined  rather  to  reverse.  He 
admits  distinctly  the  seniority  of  fishes.  How  came 
that  seniority  to  be  set  down  here  ?  He  admits  as 
probable  upon  present  knowledge,  in  the  person  of 
Homo  sajoie7is,  the  juniority  of  man  (p.  856).  How  came 
this  juniority  to  be  set  down  here  %  He  proceeds  indeed 
to  describe  an  opposite  opinion  concerning  man  as  hold¬ 
ing  exactly  the  same  rank  as  the  one  to  which  he  had 
given  an  apparent  sanction  {ibid.).  As  I  do  not  pre¬ 
cisely  understand  the  bearing  of  the  terms  he  uses,  I 
pass  them  by,  and  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  referring 
presently  to  the  latest  authorities,  which  he  has  himself 
suggested  that  I  should  consult.  But  I  add  to  the 
questions  I  have  just  put  this  other  inquiry  :  How  came 
the  Mosaic  writer  to  place  the  fishes  and  the  men  in 
their  true  relative  jjositions  not  only  to  one  another, 
and  not  only  to  the  rest  of  the  animal  succession,  but 
in  a  definite  and  that  a  true  relation  of  time  to  the 
origin  of  the  first  plant-life,  and  to  the  colossal  operations 


*  Only  several  from  No.  3  by  the  order  of  succession  in  the  narra¬ 
tive,  not  by  any  fresh  grammatical  recommencement. — W.  E.  G.,  1897. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


59 


by  which  the  earth  was  fitted  for  them  all?  Mr. 
Huxley  knows  very  well  that  it  would  be  in  the  highest 
degree  irrational  to  ascribe  this  correct  distribution  to 
the  doctrine  of  chances  ;  nor  will  the  stone  of  Sisyphus 
of  itself  constitute  a  sufficient  answer  to  inquiries  which 
are  founded,  not  upon  a  fanciful  attempt  to  equate  every 
word  of  the  Proem  with  every  dictum  of  science,  but 
upon  those  principles  of  probable  reasoning  by  which 
all  rational  lives  are  and  must  be  guided. 

I  find  the  latest  published  authority  on  geology  in  the 
Second  or  Mr.  Etheridge’s  volume  of  the  ‘  Manual  ’  *  of 
Professor  Phillips,  and  by  this  I  will  now  proceed  to 
test  the  sixfold  series  which  I  have  ventured  upon 

presenting. 

First,  however,  looking  back  for  a  moment  to  a  work, 
obviously  of  the  highest  authority,!  on  the  geology  of 
its  day,  I  find  in  it  a  table  of  the  order  of  appearance 
of  animal  life  upon  the  earth,  which,  beginning  with 
the  oldest,  gives  us — • 

1.  Invertebrates.  4.  Birds. 

2.  Fishes.  5.  Mammals. 

3.  Reptiles.  6.  Man. 

I  omit  all  reference  to  specifications,  and  speak  only 
of  the  principal  lines  of  division. 

In  the  Phillips-Ftheridge  ‘  Manual,’  beginning  as 
before  with  the  oldest,  I  find  the  following  arrangement, 
given  partly  by  statement,  and  partly  by  diagram. 

1.  “The  Azoic  or  Arctuean  time  of  Dana;”  called 
Pre-Cambrian  by  other  physicists  (pp.  3,  5). 

*  Phillips’s  ‘  Manual  of  Geology  ’  (vol.  ii.),  part  ii.,  by  R.  Etheridge, 
F.R.S,  New  edition,  1885. 

f  ‘  Paleontology, ’  by  Richard  Owen  (now  Sir  Richard  Owen,  K.C.B.). 
Second  edition,  p.  5,  1861. 


60 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


2.  A  commencement  of  plant-life  indicated  by  Dana 
as  anterior  to  invertebrate  animal  life ;  long  anterior 
to  the  vertebrate  forms,  which  alone  are  mentioned  in 
Genesis  (pp.  4,  5). 

3.  Three  periods  of  invertebrate  life. 

4.  Age  of  fishes. 

5.  Age  of  reptiles. 

6.  Age  of  mammals,  much  less  remote. 

7.  Age  of  man,  much  less  remote  than  mammals. 

As  to  birds,  though  they  have  not  a  distinct  and 
separate  age  assigned  them,  the  ‘  Manual  ’  (vol.  i.  ch. 
xxv.  pp.  511-520)  supplies  us  very  clearly  with  their 
place  in  “  the  succession  of  animal  life.”  We  are  here 
furnished  with  the  following  series,  after  the  fishes : 

1.  Dossil  reptiles  (p.  512).  2.  Ornithosauria  (p.  517) ; 

they  were  “  flying  animals,  which  combined  the  charac¬ 
ters  of  reptiles  with  those  of  birds.”  3.  The  first  birds 
of  the  secondary  rocks  with  “  feathers  in  all  respects 
similar  to  those  of  existing  birds”  (p.  518).  4.  Mammals 
(p.  520). 

I  have  been  permitted  to  see  in  proof  another  state¬ 
ment  from  an  authority  still  more  recent,  Professor 
Prestwich,  which  is  now  passing  through  the  press.  In 
it  (pp.  80,  81)  I  find  the  following  seniority  assigned 
to  the  orders  which  I  here  name  : — 

1.  Plants  (cryptogamous).  4.  Mammals. 

2.  Pishes.  5.  Man. 

3.  Birds. 

It  will  now,  I  hope,  be  observed  that,  according  to  the 
probable  intention  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  these  five  orders 
enumerated  by  him  correspond  with  the  state  of  geo¬ 
logical  knowledge,  presented  to  us  by  the  most  recent 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


61 


authorities,  in  this  sense  ;  that  the  origins  of  these  orders 
respectively  have  the  same  succession  as  is  assigned  in 
Genesis  to  those  representatives  of  the  orders,  which 
alone  were  probably  known  to  the  experience  of  Adamic 
man.  My  fourfold  succession  thus,  without  suffering 
any  shock,  grows  into  a  fivefold  one.  By  placing  before 
the  first  plant-life  the  azoic  period,  it  becomes  sixfold. 
And  again  by  placing  before  this  the  principal  stages  of 
the  cosmogony,  it  becomes,  according  as  they  are  stated, 
nine  or  tenfold ;  every  portion  holding  the  place  most 
agreeable  to  modern  hypothesis  and  modern  science 
respectively. 

I  now  notice  the  points  in  which,  so  far  as  I  under¬ 
stand,  the  text  of  the  Proem,  as  it  stands,  is  either 
incomplete  or  at  variance  with  the  representations  of 
science. 

1 .  It  does  not  notice  the  great  periods  of  invertebrate 
life  standing  between  (1)  and  (2)  of  my  last  enumeration. 

2.  It  also  passes  by  the  great  age  of  Reptiles,  with 
their  antecessors  the  Amphibia,  which  come  between  (2) 
and  (3).  The  secondary  or  Mesozoic  period,  says  the 
£  Manual  ’  (i.  511),  “  has  often  been  termed  the  age  of 
Reptiles.” 

3.  It  mentions  plants  in  terms  which,  as  I  understand 
from  Professor  Huxley  and  otherwise,  correspond  with 
the  later,  not  the  earlier,  forms  of  plant-life. 

4.  It  mentions  reptiles  in  the  same  category  with  its 
mammals. 

Now,  as  regards  the  first  two  heads,  these  omissions, 
enormous  with  reference  to  the  scientific  record,  are 
completely  in  harmony  with  the  probable  aim  of  the 
Mosaic  writer,  as  embracing  only  the  formation  of  the 
objects  and  creatures  with  which  early  man  was 


62 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


conversant.  The  introduction  of  these  orders,  invisible 
and  unknown,  would  have  been  not  agreeable,  but 
injurious,  to  his  purpose. 

As  respects  the  third,  it  will  strike  the  reader  of  the 
Proem  that  plant-life  (vers.  11,  12)  is  mentioned  with  a 
particularity  which  is  not  found  in  the  accounts  of  the 
living  orders ;  nor  in  the  second  notice  of  the  Creation, 
which  appears,  indeed,  pretty  distinctly  to  refer  to 
recent  plant-life  (Gen.  ii.  5,  8,  9).  Questions  have  been 
raised  as  to  the  translation  of  these  passages,  which  I 
am  not  able  to  solve.  But  I  bear  in  mind  the  difficulties 
which  attend  both  oral  traditions  and  the  conservation 
of  ancient  MSS.,  and  I  am  not  in  any  way  troubled  by 
the  discrepancy  before  us,  if  it  be  a  discrepancy,  as  it  is 
the  general  structure  and  effect  of  the  Mosaic  state¬ 
ment  on  which  I  take  my  stand. 

With  regard  to  reptiles,  while  I  should  also  hold  by 
my  last  remark,  the  case  is  different.  They  appear  to 
be  mentioned  as  contemporary  with  mammals,  whereas 
they  are  of  prior  origin.  But  the  relative  significance  of 
the  several  orders  evidently  affected  the  method  of  the 
Mosaic  writer.  Agreeably  to  this  idea,  insects  are  not 
named  at  all.  So  reptiles  were  a  family  fallen  from 
greatness  ;  instead  of  stamping  on  a  great  period  of  life 
its  leading  character,  they  merely  skulked  upon  the 
earth.  They  are  introduced,  as  will  appear  better  from 
the  LXX  than  from  the  A.Y.  or  B.Y.,  as  a  sort  of 
appendage  to  mammals.  Lying  outside  both  the  use 
and  the  dominion  of  man,  and  far  less  within  his 
probable  notice,  they  are  not  wholly  omitted  like  insects, 
but  treated  apparently  in  a  loose  manner  as  not  one  of 
the  main  features  of  the  picture  which  the  writer  meant 
to  draw.  In  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  where  the 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


63 


four  principal  orders  are  recited  after  the  series  in 
Genesis,  reptiles  are  dropped  altogether,  which  suggests 
either  that  the  present  text  is  unsound,  or,  perhaps 
more  probably,  that  they  were  deemed  a  secondary  and 
insignificant  part  of  it.  But,  however  this  case  may  be 
regarded,  of  course  I  cannot  draw  from  it  any  support 
to  my  general  contention. 

I  distinguish,  then,  in  the  broadest  manner,  between 
Professor  Huxley’s  exposition  of  certain  facts  of  science, 
and  his  treatment  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  I  accept  the 
first,  with  the  reverence  due  to  a  great  teacher  from  the 
meanest  of  his  hearers,  as  a  needed  correction  to  myself, 
and  a  valuable  instruction  for  the  world.  But,  subject 
to  that  correction,  I  adhere  to  my  proposition  respecting 
the  fourfold  succession  in  the  Proem ;  which  further  I 
extend  to  a  fivefold  succession  respecting  life,  and  to  the 
great  stages  of  the  cosmogony  to  boot.  The  five  origins, 
or  first  appearances  of  plants,  fishes,  birds,  mammals 
and  man,  are  given  to  us  in  Genesis  in  the  order  of 
succession,  in  which  they  are  also  given  by  the  latest 
geological  authorities. 

It  is,  therefore,  by  attaching  to  words  a  sense  they 
were  never  meant  to  bear,  and  by  this  only,  that  Mr. 
Huxley  establishes  the  parallels  (so  to  speak)  from 
which  he  works  his  heavy  artillery.  Land-population  is 
a  phrase  meant  by  me  to  describe  the  idea  of  the  Mosaic 
writer,  which  I  conceive  to  be  that  of  the  animals 
familiarly  known  to  early  man.  But,  by  treating  this 
as  a  scientific  phrase,  it  is  made  to  include  extinct 
reptiles,  which  I  understand  Mr.  Huxley  (N.  C.  p.  853) 
to  treat  as  being  land-animals ;  as,  by  taking  birds  of  a 
very  high  formation,  it  may  be  held  that  mammal  forms 
existed  before  such  birds  were  produced.  These  are 


64 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


artificial  contradictions,  set  up  by  altering  in  its  essence 
one  of  the  two  things  which  it  is  sought  to  compare. 

If  I  am  asked  whether  I  contend  for  the  absolute 
accordance  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  as  interpreted  by  me, 
with  the  facts  and  presumptions  of  science,  as  I  have 
endeavoured  to  extract  them  from  the  best  authorities, 
I  answer  that  I  have  not  endeavoured  to  show  either 
that  any  accordance  has  been  demonstrated,  or  that 
more  than  a  substantial  accordance — an  accordance  in 
principal  relevant  particulars — is  to  be  accepted  as 
shown  by  probable  evidence. 

In  the  cosmogony  of  the  Proem,  which  stands  on  a 
distinct  footing  as  lying  wholly  beyond  the  experience 
of  primitive  man,  I  am  not  aware  that  any  appreciable 
flaw  is  alleged ;  but  the  nebular  hypothesis  with  which 
it  is  compared  appears  to  be,  perhaps  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  no  more  than  a  theory ;  a  theory,  however, 
long  discussed,  much  favoured,  and  widely  accepted  in 
the  scientific  world. 

In  the  geological  part,  we  are  liable  to  those  modifi¬ 
cations  or  displacements  of  testimony  which  the  future 
progress  of  the  science  may  produce.  In  this  view,  its 
testimony  does  not  in  strictness  pass,  I  suppose,  out  of 
the  category  of  probable  into  that  of  demonstrative 
evidence.  Yet  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  careful 
researches,  and  reasonings  strictly  adjusted  to  method, 
both  continued  through  some  generations,  have  not  in 
a  large  measure  produced  what  has  the  character  of  real 
knowledge.  With  that  real  knowledge  the  reader  will 
now  have  seen  how  far  I  claim  for  the  Proem  to  Genesis, 
fairly  tried,  to  be  in  real  and  most  striking  accordance. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  point  at  which  I  have  to 
observe  that  Mr.  Huxley,  I  think,  has  not  mastered 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


65 


and  probably  has  not  tried  to  master,  the  idea  of  his 
opponent  as  to  what  it  is  that  is  essentially  embraced 
in  the  idea  of  a  Divine  revelation  to  man. 

So  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is  no  definition,  properly 
so  called,  of  revelation  either  contained  in  Scripture  or 
established  by  the  general  and  permanent  consent  of 
Christians.  In  a  word  polemically  used,  of  indetermi¬ 
nate  or  variable  sense,  Professor  Huxley  has  no  title  to 
impute  to  his  opponent,  without  inquiry,  anything  more 
than  it  must  of  necessity  convey. 

But  he  seems  to  assume  that  revelation  is  to  be  con¬ 
ceived  of  as  if  it  were  a  lawyer’s  parchment,  or  a  sum 
in  arithmetic,  wherein  a  flaw  discovered  at  a  particular 
point  is  ipso  facto  fatal  to  the  whole.  Very  little  re¬ 
flection  would  show  Professor  Huxley  that  there  may 
be  those  who  find  evidences  of  the  communication  of 
Divine  knowledge  in  the  Proem  to  Genesis  as  they  read 
it  in  their  Bibles,  without  approaching  to  any  such  con¬ 
ception.  There  is  the  uncertainty  of  translation  ;  trans¬ 
lators  are  not  inspired.  There  is  the  difficulty  of  tran¬ 
scription  ;  transcribers  are  not  inspired,  and  an  element  of 
error  is  inseparable  from  the  work  of  a  series  of  copyists. 
How  this  works  in  the  long  courses  of  time,  we  see  in 
the  varying  texts  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  rival  claims 
not  easy  to  adjust.  Thus  the  authors  of  the  recent 
Revision  *  have  had  to  choose  in  the  Massoretic  text 
itself  between  different  readings,  and  “  in  exceptional 
cases”  have  given  a  preference  to  the  Ancient  Versions. 
Thus,  upon  practical  grounds  quite  apart  from  the 
higher  questions  concerning  the  original  composition, 
we  seem  at  once  to  find  a  human  element  in  the  sacred 


i. 


*  Preface  to  the  Revised  Old  Testament,  p.  vi. 


F 


66 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


text.  That  there  is  a  further  and  larger  question,  not 
shut  out  from  the  view  even  of  the  most  convinced  and 
sincere  believers,  Mr.  Huxley  may  perceive  by  reading, 
for  example,  Coleridge’s  c  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring 
Spirit.’  The  question  whether  this  Proem  bears  witness 
to  a  Divine  communication,  to  a  working  beyond  that 
of  merely  human  faculties  in  the  composition  of  the 
Scriptures,  is  essentially  one  for  the  disciples  of  Bishop 
Butler ;  a  question,  not  of  demonstrative,  but  of  probable 
evidence.  I  am  not  prepared  to  abandon,  but  rather 
to  defend,  the  following  proposition.  It  is  perfectly  con¬ 
ceivable  that  a  document  penned  by  the  human  hand, 
and  transmitted  by  human  means,  may  contain  matter 
questionable,  uncertain,  or  even  mistaken,  and  yet  may 
by  its  contents  as  a  whole  present  such  7rto-Tei5,  such  moral 
proofs  of  truth  Divinely  imparted,  as  ought  irrefragably 
pro  tanto  to  command  assent  and  govern  practice.  A 
man  may  possibly  admit  something  not  reconciled,  and 
yet  may  be  what  Mr.  Huxley  denounces  as  a  Reconciler. 

I  do  not  suppose  it  would  be  feasible,  even  for 
Professor  Huxley,  taking  the  nebular  hypothesis  and 
geological  discovery  for  his  guides,  to  give,  in  the  com¬ 
pass  of  the  first  twenty-seven  verses  of  Genesis,  an 
account  of  the  cosmogony,  and  of  the  succession  of  life 
in  the  stratification  of  the  earth,  which  would  combine 
scientific  precision  of  statement  with  the  majesty,  the 
simplicity,  the  intelligibility,  and  the  impressiveness 
of  the  record  before  us.  Let  me  modestly  call  it,  for 
argument’s  sake,  an  approximation  to  the  present  pre¬ 
sumptions  and  conclusions  of  science.  Let  me  assume 
that  the  statement  in  the  text  as  to  plants,  and  the 
statement  of  vers.  24,  25  as  to  reptiles,  cannot  in  all 
points  be  sustained ;  and  yet  still  there  remain  great 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


67 


unshaken  facts  to  be  weighed.  First,  the  fact  that  such 
a  record  should  have  been  made  at  all.  Secondly,  the 
fact  that,  instead  of  dwelling  in  generalities,  it  has 
placed  itself  under  the  severe  conditions  of  a  chrono¬ 
logical  order,  reaching  from  the  first  nisus  of  chaotic 
matter  to  the  consummated  production  of  a  fair  and 
goodly,  a  furnished  and  a  peopled  world.  Thirdly,  the 
fact  that  its  cosmogony  seems,  in  the  light  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  to  draw  more  and  more  of  counte¬ 
nance  from  the  best  natural  philosophy ;  and  fourthly, 
that  it  has  described  the  successive  origins  of  the  five 
great  categories  of  present  life,  with  which  human  ex¬ 
perience  was  and  is  conversant,  in  that  order  which 
geological  authority  confirms.  How  came  these  things 
to  b el  How  came  they  to  be,  not  among  Accadians, 
or  Assyrians,  or  Egyptians,  who  monopolised  the  stores 
of  human  knowledge  when  this  wonderful  tradition  was 
born ;  but  among  the  obscure  records  of  a  people  who, 
dwelling  in  Palestine  for  twelve  hundred  years  from 
their  sojourn  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  hardly  had  force 
to  stamp  even  so  much  as  their  name  upon  the  history 
of  the  world  at  large,  and  only  then  began  to  be 
admitted  to  the  general  communion  of  mankind  when 
their  Scriptures  assumed  the  dress  which  a  Gentile 
tongue  was  needed  to  supply1?  It  is  more  rational,  I 
contend,  to  say  that  these  astonishing  anticipations  were 
a  God-given  supply,  than  to  suppose  that  a  race,  who 
fell  uniformly  and  entirely  short  of  the  great  intellectual 
development*  of  antiquity,  should  here  not  only  have 

*  I  write  thus  bearing  fully  in  mincl  the  unsurpassed  sublimity 
of  much  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  consideration 
of  this  subject  would  open  a  wholly  new  line  of  argument,  which  the 
present  article  does  not  allow  me  to  attempt. 


68 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


equalled  and  outstripped  it,  but  have  entirely  trans¬ 
cended,  in  kind  even  more  than  in  degree,  all  known 
exercise  of  human  faculties. 

Whether  this  was  knowledge  conveyed  to  the  mind 
of  the  Mosaic  author,  I  do  not  presume  to  determine. 
There  has  been,  in  the  belief  of  Christians,  a  profound 
providential  purpose,  little  and  not  uniformly  visible 
to  us,  which  presided,  from  Genesis  to  the  Apocalypse, 
over  the  formation  of  the  marvellous  compound,  which 
we  term  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This  we  wonderingly 
embrace  without  being  much  perplexed  by  the  questions 
which  are  raised  on  them ;  for  instance,  by  the  question, 
In  what  exact  relation  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha, 
sometimes  termed  deutero-canonical,  stand  to  the  books 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  Difficulties  of  detail,  such  as 
may  (or  ultimately  may  not)  be  found  to  exist  in  the 
Proem  to  Genesis,  have  much  the  same  relation  to 
the  evidence  of  revealed  knowledge  in  this  record,  as  the 
spots  in  the  sun  to  his  all-unfolding  and  sufficing  light. 
But  as  to  the  Mosaic  writer  himself,  all  I  presume  to 
accept  is  the  fact  that  he  put  upon  undying  record, 
in  this  portion  of  his  work,  a  series  of  particulars  which, 
interpreted  in  the  growing  light  of  modern  knowledge, 
require  from  us,  on  the  whole,  as  reasonable  men,  the 
admission  that  we  do  not  see  how  he  could  have  written 
them,  and  that  in  all  likelihood  he  did  not  write  them, 
without  aid  from  the  guidance  of  a  more  than  human 
power.  It  is  in  this  guidance,  and  not  necessarily  or 
uniformly  in  the  consciousness  of  the  writer,  that, 
according  to  my  poor  conception,  the  idea  of  Revelation 
mainly  lies. 

And  now  one  word  on  the  subject  of  Evolution.  I 
cannot  follow  Mr.  Huxley  in  his  minute  acquaintance 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS, 


60 


with  Indian  sages,  and  I  am  not  aware  that  Evolution 
has  a  place  in  the  greater  number  of  the  schools  of 
Greek  philosophy.  Nor  can  I  comprehend  the  rapidity 
with  which  persons  of  authority  have  come  to  treat 
the  Darwinian  hypothesis  as  having  reached  the  final 
stage  of  demonstration.  To  the  eye  of  a  looker-on  their 
pace  and  method  seem  rather  too  much  like  a  steeple¬ 
chase.  But  this  may  very  well  be  due  to  their  want 
of  appropriate  knowledge  and  habits  of  thought.  For 
myself,  in  my  loose  and  uninformed  way  of  looking 
at  Evolution,  I  feel  only  too  much  biassed  in  its  favour, 
by  what  I  conceive  to  be  its  relation  to  the  great 
argument  of  design.* 

Not  that  I  share  the  horror  with  which  some  men  of 
science  appear  to  contemplate  a  multitude  of  what  they 
term  “sudden”  acts  of  creation.  All  things  considered, 
a  singular  expression :  but  one,  I  suppose,  meaning  the 
act  which  produces,  in  the  region  of  nature,  something 
not  related,  by  an  unbroken  succession  of  measured  and 
equable  stages,  to  what  has  gone  before  it.  But  what 
has  equality  or  brevity  of  stage  to  do  with  the  question 
how  far  the  act  is  creative  ?  I  fail  to  see,  or  indeed  am 
somewhat  disposed  to  deny,  that  the  short  stage  is  less 
creative  than  the  long,  the  single  than  the  manifold,  the 
equable  than  the  jointed  or  graduated  stage.  Evolution 
is,  to  me,  series  with  development.  And  like  series  in 
mathematics,  whether  arithmetical  or  geometrical,  it 


*  “  Views  like  these,  when  formulated  by  religious  instead  of 
scientific  thought,  make  more  of  Divine  Providence  and  fore-ordination, 
than  of  Divine  intervention ;  but  perhaps  they  are  not  the  less  theistical 
on  that  account.”  (From  the  very  remarkable  Lectures  of  Professor 
Asa  Gray  on  ‘Natural  Science  and  Religion,’  p.  77.  Scribner,  New 
York,  1880.) 


70 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


establishes  in  things  an  unbroken  progression  ;  it  places 
each  thing  (if  only  it  stand  the  test  of  ability  to  live)  in 
a  distinct  relation  to  every  other  thing,  and  makes  each 
a  witness  to  all  that  have  preceded  it,  a  prophecy  of  all 
that  are  to  follow  it.  It  gives  to  the  argument  of 
design,  now  called  the  teleological  argument,  at  once 
a  wider  expansion,  and  an  augmented  tenacity  and 
solidity  of  tissue.  But  I  must  proceed. 

I  find  Mr.  Huxley  asserting  that  the  things  of  science, 
with  which  he  is  so  splendidly  conversant,  are  “  suscep¬ 
tible  of  clear  intellectual  comprehension”  (N.  C.  p.  859). 
Is  this  rhetoric,  or  is  it  a  formula  of  philosophy?  If 
the  latter,  will  it  bear  examination?  He  pre-eminently 
understands  the  relations  between  those  things  which 
Nature  offers  to  his  view  ;  but  does  he  understand  each 
thing  in  itself,  or  how  the  last  term  but  one  in  an 
evolutional  series  passes  into  and  becomes  the  last  ? 
The  seed  may  produce  the  tree,  the  tree  the  branch,  the 
branch  the  twig,  the  twig  the  leaf  or  flower  ;  but  can  we 
understand  the  slightest  mutation  or  growth  of  Nature 
in  itself?  can  we  tell  how  the  twig  passes  into  leaf  or 
flower,  one  jot  more  than  if  the  flower  or  leaf,  instead 
of  coming  from  the  twig,  came  directly  from  the  tree  or 
from  the  seed  ? 

I  cannot  but  trace  some  signs  of  haste  in  Professor 
Huxley’s  assertion  that,  outside  the  province  of  science 
(ibid.),  we  have  only  imagination,  hope,  and  ignorance. 
Not,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  that  he  is  one  of  those 
who  rob  mankind  of  the  best  and  highest  of  their 
inheritance,  by  denying  the  reality  of  all  but  material 
objects.  But  the  statement  is  surely  open  to  objection, 
as  omitting  or  seeming  to  omit  from  view  the  vast  fields 
of  knowledge  only  probable,  which  are  not  of  mere  hope, 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


71 


nor  of  mere  imagination,  nor  of  mere  ignorance  ;  which 
include  alike  the  inward  and  the  outward  life  of  man  ; 
within  which  lie  the  real  instruments  of  his  training, 
and  where  he  is  to  learn  how  to  think,  to  act,  to  be. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  notice  briefly  the  last  page  of 
Professor  Huxley’s  paper,  in  which  he  drops  the  scientist 
and  becomes  simply  the  man.  I  read  it  with  deep 
interest,  and  with  no  small  sympathy.  In  touching 
upon  it,  I  shall  make  no  reference  (let  him  forgive  me 
the  expression)  to  his  “  damnatory  clauses,”  or  to  his 
harmless  menace,  so  deftly  conveyed  through  the  Prophet 
Micah,  to  the  public  peace. 

The  exaltation  of  Religion  as  against  Theology  is  at 
the  present  day  not  only  so  fashionable,  but  usually  so 
domineering  and  contemptuous,  that  I  am  grateful  to 
Professor  Huxley  for  his  frank  statement  (p.  859)  that 
Theology  is  a  branch  of  science ;  nor  do  I  in  the  smallest 
degree  quarrel  with  his  contention  that  Religion  and 
Theology  ought  not  to  be  confounded.  We  may  have  a 
great  deal  of  Religion  with  very  little  Theology ;  and  a 
great  deal  of  Theology  with  very  little  Religion.  I  feel 
sure  that  Professor  Huxley  must  observe  with  pleasure 
how  strongly  practical,  ethical,  and  social  is  the  general 
tenor  (especially)  of  the  three  synoptic  Gospels ;  and 
how  the  appearance  in  the  world  of  the  great  doctrinal 
Gospel  was  reserved  to  a  later  stage,  as  if  to  meet  a 
later  need,  when  men  had  been  toned  anew  by  the 
morality  and,  above  all,  by  the  life  of  our  Lord. 

I  am  not,  therefore,  writing  against  him,  when  I 
remark  upon  the  habit  of  treating  Theology  with  an 
affectation  of  contempt.  It  is  nothing  better,  I  believe, 
than  a  mere  fashion ;  having  no  more  reference  to  per¬ 
manent  principle,  than  the  mass  of  ephemeral  fashions, 


72 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


that  come  from  Paris,  have  with  the  immovable  types  of 
Beauty.  Those  who  take  for  the  burden  of  their  song, 
“  Respect  Religion,  but  despise  Theology,”  seem  to  me 
just  as  rational  as  if  a  person  were  to  say,  “  Admire  the 
trees,  the  plants,  the  flowers,  the  sun,  moon,  or  stars, 
but  despise  Botany,  and  despise  Astronomy.”  Theology 
is  ordered  knowledge ;  representing  in  the  region  of  the 
intellect  what  religion  represents  in  the  heart  and  life 
of  man.  And  this  religion,  Mr.  Huxley  says  a  little 
further  on,  is  summed  up  in  the  terms  of  the  Prophet 
Micah  (vi.  8) :  “  Do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and  walk 
humbly  with  thy  God.”  I  forbear  to  inquire  whether 
every  addition  to  this — such,  for  instance,  as  the  Beati¬ 
tudes — is  (A.  C.  p.  860)  to  be  proscribed.  But  I  will 
not  dispute  that  in  these  words  is  conveyed  the  true 
ideal  of  religious  discipline  and  attainment.  They  really 
import  that  identification  of  the  will  which  is  set  out 
with  such  wonderful  force  in  the  very  simple  words  of 
the  1  Paradiso  :  ’ 

“  In  la  sua  volontade  e  nostra  pace,” 
and  which  no  one  has  more  beautifully  described  than 
(I  think)  Charles  Lamb  :  “  He  gave  his  heart  to  the 
Purifier,  his  will  to  the  Will  that  governs  the  universe.” 
It  may  be  we  shall  find  that  Christianity  itself  is  in 
some  sort  a  scaffolding,  and  that  the  final  building  is  a 
pure  and  perfect  theism :  when  *  the  kingdom  shall  be 
“  delivered  up  to  God,”  “  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.”  j* 

*  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  28. 

f  On  the  publication  of  this  paper  I  received  from  two  quarters 
prompt  remonstrances  against  the  passages  ending  with  these  words, 
as  one  disparaging  to  the  honour  of  our  Lord’s  humanity.  My 
intention  in  it  was  simply  to  conform  to  the  declaration  of  St.  Paul : 
Avhatever  may  go  beyond  that,  I  disavow  and  retract.  But  in  those 
concurrent  remonstrances  there  was  one  extremeR  interesting  feature, 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


73 


Still,  I  cannot  help  being  struck  with  an  impression 
that  Mr.  Huxley  appears  to  cite  these  terms  of  Micah, 
as  if  they  reduced  the  work  of  religion  from  a  difficult 
to  a  very  easy  performance.  But  look  at  them  again. 
Examine  them  well.  They  are,  in  truth,  in  Cowper’s 
words — 

“  Higher  than  the  heights  above, 

Deeper  than  the  depths  beneath.” 

Do  justly,  that  is  to  say,  extinguish  self;  love  mercy, 
cut  utterly  away  all  the  pride  and  wrath,  and  all  the 
cupidity,  that  make  this  fair  world  a  wilderness ;  walk 
humbly  with  thy  God,  take  His  will  and  set  it  in  the 
place  where  thine  own  was  used  to  rule.  “  Ring  out 
the  old,  ring  in  the  new.”  Pluck  down  the  tyrant  from 
his  place ;  set  up  the  true  Master  on  His  lawful  throne. 

There  are  certainly  human  beings,  of  happy  com¬ 
position,  who  mount  these  airy  heights  with  elastic 
step,  and  with  unbated  breath. 

“  Sponte  sua,  sine  lege,  fidem  rectumque  colebat.”  * 

This  comparative  refinement  of  nature  in  some  may 
even  lead  them  to  undervalue  the  stores  of  that  rich 
armoury,  which  Christianity  has  provided  to  equip  us 
for  our  great  life-battle.  The  text  of  the  Prophet 
Micah,  developed  into  all  the  breadth  of  St.  Paul  and 
St.  Augustine,  is  not  too  much — is  it  not  often  all  too 
little  h — for  the  needs  of  ordinary  men. 

I  must  now  turn,  by  way  of  epilogue,  to  Professor 

namely,  the  wide  apparent  severance  of  the  quarters  from  which  they 
proceeded.  One  was  from  Cardinal  Manning  ;  the  other  from  Dr. 
Hutton,  a  leading  minister  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Scotland. 

*  Ovid,  ‘Metam.’  i.  90. 


74 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


Max  Miiller ;  and  I  hope  to  show  him  that  on  the 
questions  which  he  raises  we  are  not  very  far  apart. 
One  grievous  wrong,  indeed,  he  does  me  in  (apparently) 
ascribing  to  me  the  execrable  word  “  theanthromorphic  ” 
( N .  C.  p.  920),  of  which  I  wholly  disclaim  the  paternity, 
and  deny  the  use.  Then  he  says,  I  warn  him  not  to 
trust  too  much  to  etymology  (p.  921).  Not  so.  But 
only  not  to  trust  to  it  for  the  wrong  purpose,  in  the 
wrong  place :  just  as  I  should  not  preach  on  the  virtue 
and  value  of  liberty  to  a  man  requiring  handcuffs.  I 
happen  to  bear  a  name  known,  in  its  genuine  form,  to 
mean  stones  or  rocks  frequented  by  the  gled ;  and  pro¬ 
bably  taken  from  the  habitat  of  its  first  bearer.  Now, 
if  any  human  being  should  ever  hereafter  make  any 
inquiry  about  me,  trace  the  current  form  of  my  name 
to  its  origin,  and  therefore  describe  the  susceptibility  of 
stones  to  gladness,  he  would  not  use  etymology  too 
much,  but  would  use  it  ill.  What  I  protest  against  is 
a  practice,  not  without  example,  of  taking  the  etymology 
of  mythologic  names  in  Homer,  and  thereupon  supposing 
that  in  all  cases  we  have  thus  obtained  a  guide  to  their 
Homeric  sense.  The  place  of  Nereus  in  the  mind  of  the 
poet  is  indisputable ;  and  here  etymology  helps  us.  But 
when  a  light-etymology  is  found  for  Hera,  and  it  is 
therefore  asserted  that  in  Homer  she  is  a  light- goddess, 
or  when,  because  no  one  denies  that  Phoibos  is  a  light- 
name,  therefore  the  Apollo  of  Homer  was  the  Sun,  then 
indeed,  not  etymology,  but  the  misuse  of  etymology, 
hinders  and  misleads  us.  In  a  question  of  etymology, 
however,  I  shall  no  more  measure  swords  with  Mr.  Max 
Muller  than  with  Mr.  Huxley  in  a  matter  of  natural 
science,  and  this  for  the  simple  reason  that  my  sword  is 
but  a  lath.  I  therefore  surrender  to  the  mercy  of  this 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


7  n 

great  philologist  the  conjectural  derivation  of  dine  and 
diner'  from  dejeuner;  which  may  have  been  suggested 
by  the  use  of  the  word  dine  in  our  Bible  (as  John  xxi.  12) 
for  breakfasting ;  a  sense  expressed  by  La  Bruyere  (xi.) 
in  the  words,  Cliton  n’a  jamais  eu,  toute  sa  vie,  que  deux 
affaires ,  qui  sont  de  diner  le  matin,  et  de  soujper  le  soir. 

But,  Mr.  Max  Muller  says,  I  have  offended  against 
the  fundamental  principles  of  comparative  mythology 
(A.  C.  p.  919).  How,  where,  and  why,  have  I  thus 
tumbled  into  mortal  sin  ?  By  attacking  solarism.  But 
what  have  I  attacked,  and  what  has  he  defended1?  I 
have  attacked  nothing,  but  the  exclusive  use  of  the 
solar  theory  to  solve  all  the  problems  of  the  Aryan 
religions ;  and  it  is  to  this  monopolising  pretension  that 
I  seek  to  apply  the  name  of  solarism,  while  admitting 
that  “  the  solar  theory  has  a  most  important  place  ”  in 
solving  such  problems  (A.  C.  p.  704).  But  my  vis-a-vis, 
whom  I  really  cannot  call  my  opponent,  declares  (A.  C. 
p.  919)  that  the  solarism  I  denounce  is  not  his  solarism 
at  all ;  and  he  only  seeks  to  prove  that  “  certain  portions 
of  ancient  mythology  have  a  directly  solar  origin.”  So 
it  proves  that  I  attack  only  what  he  repudiates,  and  I 
seem  even  to  defend  what  he  defends.  That  is,  I  humbly 
subscribe  to  a  doctrine,  which  he  has  made  famous 
throughout  the  civilised  world. 

It  is  only  when  a  yoke  is  put  upon  Homer’s  neck,  that 
I  presume  to  cry  “hands  off.”  The  Olympian  system, 
of  which  Homer  is  the  great  architect,  is  a  marvellous 
and  splendid  structure.  Following  the  guidance  of 
ethnological  affinities  and  memories,  it  incorporates  in 
itself  the  most  diversified  traditions,  and  binds  them 
into  an  unity  by  the  plastic  power  of  an  unsurpassed 
creative  imagination.  Its  dominating  spirit  is  intensely 


76 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


human.  It  is  therefore  of  necessity  thoroughly  anti- 
elemental.  Yet,  when  the  stones  of  this  magnificent 
fabric  are  eyed  singly  by  the  observer,  they  bear  obvious 
marks  of  having  been  appropriated  from  elsewhere  by 
the  sovereign  prerogative  of  genius ;  of  having  had  an 
anterior  place  in  other  systems ;  of  having  largely 
belonged  to  Nature- worship,  and  in  some  cases  to  Sun- 
worship  ;  of  having  been  drawn  from  many  quarters, 
and  among  them  from  those  which  Mr.  Max  Muller 
excludes  (p.  921)  :  from  Egypt,  and  either  from  Palestine, 
or  from  the  same  traditional  source,  to  which  Palestine 
itself  was  indebted.  But  this  is  not  the  present  question. 
As  to  the  solar  theory,  I  hope  I  have  shown  either  that 
our  positions  are  now  identical,  or  that,  if  there  be  a 
rift  between  them,  it  is  so  narrow  that  we  may  con¬ 
veniently  shake  hands  across  it. 


III. 

‘ ROBERT  ELSMERE : 5 
THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.* 

1888.  t 

Human  nature,  when  aggrieved,  is  apt  and  quick  in 
devising  compensations.  The  increasing  seriousness  and 
strain  of  our  present  life  may  have  had  the  effect  of 
bringing  about  the  large  preference,  which  I  understand 
to  be  exhibited  in  local  public  libraries,  for  works  of 
fiction.  This  is  the  first  expedient  of  revenge.  But  it 
is  only  a  link  in  a  chain.  The  next  step  is,  that  the 
writers  of  what  might  be  grave  books,  in  esse  or  in  posse, 
have  endeavoured  with  some  success  to  circumvent  the 
multitude.  Those  who  have  systems  or  hypotheses  to 
recommend  in  philosophy,  conduct,  or  religion  induct 
them  into  the  costume  of  romance.  Such  was  the  second 
expedient  of  nature,  the  counterstroke  of  her  revenge. 
When  this  was  done  in  1  Telemaque,’  £  Rasselas,’  or 
‘  Ccelebs,’  it  was  not  without  literary  effect.  Even  the  last 
of  these  three  appears  to  have  been  successful  with  its  own 
generation.  It  would  now  be  deemed  intolerably  dull. 
But  a  dull  book  is  easily  renounced.  The  more  didactic 

*  ‘Robert  Elsmere. ’  By  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward,  author  of  ‘Miss 
Bretherton.’  In  3  vols.  London  :  Smith,  Elder,  &  Co.,  1888. 
f  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 


78  ‘ROBERT  elsmere:’  the  battle  of  belief. 

fictions  of  the  present  day,  so  far  as  I  know  them,  are 
not  dull.  We  take  them  up,  however,  and  we  find  that, 
when  we  meant  to  go  to  play,  we  have  gone  to  school. 
The  romance  is  a  gospel  of  some  philosophy,  or  of  some 
religion  ;  and  requires  sustained  thought  on  many  or 
some  of  the  deepest  subjects,  as  the  only  rational 
alternative  to  placing  ourselves  at  the  mercy  of  our 
author.  We  find  that  he  has  put  upon  us  what  is 
not  indeed  a  treatise,  but  more  formidable  than  if 
it  were.  For  a  treatise  must  nowhere  beg  the  question 
it  seeks  to  decide,  but  must  carry  its  reader  onwards  by 
reasoning  patiently  from  step  to  step.  But  the  writer 
of  the  romance,  under  the  convenient  necessity  which 
his  form  imposes,  skips  in  thought,  over  undefined 
distances,  from  stage  to  stage,  as  a  bee  from  flower  to 
flower.  A  creed  may  (as  here)  be  accepted  in  a  sentence, 
and  then  abandoned  in  a  page.  But  we  the  common 
herd  of  readers,  if  we  are  to  deal  with  the  consequences, 
to  accept  or  repel  the  influence  of  the  book,  must,  as  in 
a  problem  of  mathematics,  supply  the  missing  steps. 
Thus,  in  perusing  as  we  ought  a  propagandist  romance, 
we  must  terribly  increase  the  pace ;  and  it  is  the 
pace  that  kills. 

Among  the  works  to  which  the  preceding  remarks 
might  apply,  the  most  remarkable  within  my  knowledge 
is  ‘  Bobert  Elsmere.’  It  is  indeed  remarkable  in  many 
respects.  It  is  a  novel  of  nearly  twice  the  length,  and 
much  more  than  twice  the  matter,  of  ordinary  novels. 
It  dispenses  almost  entirely,  in  the  construction  of  wha 
must  still  be  called  its  plot,  with  the  aid  of  incident 
in  the  ordinary  sense.  We  have  indeed  near  the  close  a 
solitary  individual  crushed  by  a  waggon,  but  this  catas¬ 
trophe  has  no  relation  to  the  plot,  and  its  only  purpose 


c  ROBERT  ELSMERE:’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  79 

is  to  exhibit  a  good  death-bed  in  illustration  of  the  great 
missionary  idea  of  the  piece.  The  nexus  of  the  structure 
is  to  be  found  wholly  in  the  workings  of  character.  The 
assumption  and  the  surrender  of  a  Rectory  are  the  most 
salient  events,  and  they  are  simple  results  of  what 
the  actor  has  thought  right.  And  yet  the  great,  nay, 
paramount  function  of  character-drawing,  the  projection 
upon  the  canvas  of  human  beings  endowed  with  the  true 
forces  of  nature  and  vitality,  does  not  appear  to  be 
by  any  means  the  master-gift  of  the  authoress.  In  the 
mass  of  matter  which  she  has  prodigally  expended  there 
might  obviously  be  retrenchment ;  for  there  are  certain 
laws  of  dimension  which  apply  to  a  novel,  and  which 
separate  it  from  an  epic.  In  the  extraordinary  number 
of  personages  brought  upon  the  stage  in  one  portion  or 
other  of  the  book,  there  are  some  which  are  elaborated 
with  greater  pains  and  more  detail,  than  their  relative 
importance  seems  to  warrant.  ‘  Robert  Elsmere 5  is  hard 
reading,  and  requires  toil  and  effort.  Yet,  if  it  be  difficult 
to  persist,  it  is  impossible  to  stop.  The  prisoner  on  the 
treadmill  must  work  severely  to  perform  his  task  :  but  if 
he  stops  he  at  once  receives  a  blow  which  brings  him  to 
his  senses.  Here,  as  there,  it  is  human  infirmity  which 
shrinks ;  but  here,  as  not  there,  the  propelling  motive  is 
within.  Deliberate  judgment  and  deep  interest  alike 
rebuke  a  fainting  reader.  The  strength  of  the  book, 
overbearing  every  obstacle,  seems  to  lie  in  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  wealth  of  diction,  never  separated  from 
thought ;  in  a  close  and  searching  faculty  of  social 
observation  ;  in  generous  appreciation  of  what  is  morally 
good,  impartially  *  exhibited  in  all  directions  :  above 


*  Mrs.  Ward  has  given  evidence  of  this  impartiality  in  her  Dedi¬ 
cation  to  the  memory  of  two  friends,  of  whom  one,  Mrs.  Alfred 


80  ‘ ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

all  in  the  sense  of  mission  with  which  the  writer  is 
evidently  possessed,  and  in  the  earnestness  and  per¬ 
sistency  of  purpose  with  which  through  every  page  and 
line  it  is  pursued.  The  book  is  eminently  an  offspring 
of  the  time,  and  will  probably  make  a  deep  or  at 
least  a  very  sensible  impression ;  not,  however,  among 
mere  novel-readers,  but  among  those  who  share,  in  what¬ 
ever  sense,  the  deeper  thought  of  the  period. 

The  action  begins  in  a  Westmoreland  valley,  where 
the  three  young  daughters  of  a  pious  clergyman  are 
grouped  around  a  mother  infirm  in  health  and  without 
force  of  mind.  All  responsibility  devolves  accordingly 
upon  Catherine,  the  eldest  of  the  three ;  a  noble 
character,  living  only  for  duty  and  affection.  When 
the  ear  heard  her,  then  it  blessed  her ;  and  when  the 
eye  saw  her,  it  gave  witness  to  her.*  Here  comes  upon 
the  scene  Robert  Elsmere,  the  eponymist  and  hero  of 
the  book,  and  the  ideal,  almost  the  idol,  of  the  authoress. 

He  had  been  brought  up  at  Oxford,  in  years  when  the 
wholesale  discomfiture  of  the  great  religious  movement 
in  the  University,  which  followed  upon  the  secession  of 
Cardinal  Newman,  had  been  in  its  turn  succeeded  by  a 
new  religious  reaction.  The  youth  had  been  open  to 
the  personal  influences  of  a  tutor,  who  is  in  the  highest 
degree  beautiful,  classical,  and  indifferentist ;  and  of  a 
noble-minded  rationalising  teacher,  whose  name,  Mr. 
Grey,  is  the  thin  disguise  of  another  name,  and  whose 
lofty  character,  together  with  his  gifts,  and  with  the 
tendencies  of  the  time,  had  made  him  a  power  in  Oxford. 


Lyttelton,  lived  and  died  unshaken  in  belief.  The  other  is  more 
or  less  made  known  in  the  pages  of  the  work. 

*  See  Job  xxix.  11. 


‘ROBERT  ELSMERE:’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  81 


But,  in  its  action  on  a  nature  of  devout  susceptibilities 
as  well  as  active  talents,  the  place  is  stronger  than  the 
man,  and  Robert  casts  in  his  lot  with  the  ministry  of 
the  Church.  Let  us  stop  at  this  point  to  notice  the 
terms  used.  At  St.  Mary’s  “the  sight  and  the  expe¬ 
rience  touched  his  inmost  feeling,  and  satisfied  all  the 
poetical  and  dramatic  instincts  of  a  passionate  nature.”  * 
He  “  carried  his  religious  passion  .  .  .  into  the  service 
of  the  great  positive  tradition  around  him.”  This  great, 
and  commonly  life-governing  decision,  is  taken  under 
the  influence  of  forces  wholly  emotional.  It  is  first 
after  the  step  taken  that  we  have  an  inkling  of  any 
reason  for  it.j  This  is  not  an  isolated  phenomenon. 
It  is  a  key  to  the  entire  action.  The  work  may  be 
summed  up  in  this  way :  it  represents  a  battle  between 
intellect  and  emotion.  Of  right,  intellect  wins ;  and, 
having  won,  enlists  emotion  in  its  service. 

Elsmere  breaks  upon  us  in  Westmoreland,  prepared 
to  make  the  great  commission  the  business  of  his  life, 
and  to  spend  and  be  spent  in  it  to  the  uttermost.  He 
is  at  once  attracted  by  Catherine ;  attention  forthwith 
ripens  into  love ;  and  love  finds  expression  in  a  proposal. 
But,  with  a  less  educated  intelligence,  the  girl  has  a 
purpose  of  life  not  less  determined  than  the  youth.  She 
believes  herself  to  have  an  outdoor  vocation  in  the  glen, 
and  above  all  an  indoor  vocation  in  her  family,  of  which 
she  is  the  single  prop.  A  long  battle  of  love  ensues, 
fought  out  with  not  less  ability,  and  with  even  greater 
tenacity,  than  the  remarkable  conflict  of  intellects, 
carried  on  by  correspondence,  which  ended  in  the  mar¬ 
riage  between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Carlyle.  The  resolute 

*  i.  121,  123.  f  i.  12b. 

I,  G 


82  £  ROBERT  ELSMERE  I  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

tension  of  the  two  minds  has  many  phases  ;  and  a  double 
crisis,  first  of  refusal,  secondly  of  acceptance.  This  part 
of  the  narrative,  wrought  out  in  detail  with  singular 
skill,  will  probably  be  deemed  the  most  successful,  the 
most  normal,  of  the  whole.  It  is  thoroughly  noble  on 
both  sides.  The  final  surrender  of  Catherine  is  in  truth 
an  opening  of  the  eyes  to  a  wider  view  of  the  evolution 
of  the  individual,  and  of  the  great  vocation  of  life ;  and 
it  involves  no  disparagement.  The  garrison  evacuates 
the  citadel,  but  its  arms  have  not  been  laid  down,  and 
its  colours  are  flying  still. 

So  the  pair  settle  themselves  in  a  family  living,  full 
of  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity,  which  is  developed  with 
high  energy  in  every  practical  detail,  and  based  upon 
the  following  of  the  Incarnate  Saviour.  Equipped  thus 
far  with  all  that  renders  life  desirable,  their  union  is 
blessed  by  the  birth  of  a  daughter,  and  everything 
thrives  around  them  for  the  formation  of  an  ideal 
parish. 

But  the  parish  is  adorned  by  a  noble  old  English  man¬ 
sion,  and  the  mansion  inhabited  by  a  wealthy  Squire, 
who  knows  little  of  duty,  but  is  devoted  to  incessant 
study.  As  an  impersonated  intellect,  he  is  abreast  of 
all  modern  inquiry,  and,  a  “  Tractarian  ”  in  his  youth, 
he  has  long  abandoned  all  belief.  At  the  outset,  he 
resents  profoundly  the  Hector’s  obtrusive  concern  for 
his  neglected  tenantry.  But  the  courage  of  the  clergy¬ 
man  is  not  to  be  damped  by  isolation,  and  in  the  case 
of  a  scandalously  insanitary  hamlet,  after  an  adequate 
number  of  deaths,  Mr.  Wendover  puts  aside  the  screen 
called  his  agent,  and  rebuilds  with  an  ample  generosity* 
This  sudden  and  complete  surrender  seems  to  be  intro¬ 
duced  to  glorify  the  hero  of  the  work,  for  it  does  not 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  83 

indicate  any  permanent  change  in  the  social  ideas  of  Mr. 
Wendover,  but  only  in  his  relations  to  his  clergyman. 

There  is,  however,  made  ready  for  him  a  superlative 
revenge.  Robert  has  enjoyed  the  use  of  his  rich  library, 
and  the  two  hold  literary  communications,  but  with  a 
compact  of  silence  on  matters  of  belief.  This  treaty  is 
honourably  observed  by  the  Squire.  But  the  clergyman 
invites  his  fate.*  Mr.  Wendover  makes  known  to  him 
a  great  design  for  a  “History  of  Testimony,”  j*  worked 
out  through  many  centuries.  The  book  speaks  indeed 
of  “the  long  wrestle”  of  the  two  men,  and  the  like.£ 
But  of  Elsmere’s  wrestling  there  is  no  other  trace  or 
sign.  What  weapons  the  Rector  wielded  for  his  faith, 
what  strokes  he  struck,  has  not  even  in  a  single  line 
been  recorded.  The  discourse  of  the  Squire  points  out 
that  theologians  are  men  who  decline  to  examine 
evidence,  that  miracles  are  the  invention  of  credulous 
ages,  that  the  preconceptions  sufficiently  explain  the 
results.  He  wins  in  a  canter.  There  cannot  surely  be 
a  more  curious  contrast  than  that  between  the  real 
battle,  fought  in  a  hundred  rounds,  between  Elsmere 
and  Catherine  on  marriage,  and  the  fictitious  battle 
between  Elsmere  and  the  Squire  on  the  subject  of 
religion,  where  the  one  side  is  a  paean,  and  the  other  a 
blank.  A  great  creed,  with  the  testimony  of  eighteen 
centuries  at  its  back,  cannot  find  an  articulate  word  to 
say  in  its  defence,  and  the  downfall  of  the  scheme  of 
belief  shatters  also,  and  of  right,  the  highly  ordered 
scheme  of  life  that  had  nestled  in  the  Rectory  of  Mure- 
well,  as  it  still  does  in  thousands  of  other  English 
parsonages. 


*  ii.  243. 


f  ii.  240. 


+ 

+ 


ii.  244,  245, 


84  £  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OP  BELIEF. 

It  is  notable  that  Elsmere  seeks,  in  this  conflict  with 
the  Squire,  no  aid  or  counsel  whatever.  He  encounters 
indeed  by  chance  Mr.  Newcome,  a  Ritualistic  clergyman, 
whom  the  generous  sympathies  of  the  authoress  place 
upon  the  roll  of  his  friends.  But  the  language  of  Mr. 
Newcome  offers  no  help  to  his  understanding.  It  is 
this  : — 

“  Trample  on  yourself.  Pray  down  the  demon,  fast,  scourge, 
kill  the  body,  that  the  soul  may  live.  What  are  we  miserable 
worms,  that  we  should  defy  the  Most  High,  that  we  should  set  our 
wretched  faculties  against  His  Omnipotence  ?  ”  * 

Mr.  Newcome  appears  everywhere  as  not  only  a 
respectable  but  a  remarkable  character.  But  as  to 
what  he  says  here,  how  much  does  it  amount  to  ? 
Considered  as  a  medicine  for  a  mind  diseased,  for  an 
unsettled,  dislocated  soul,  is  it  less  or  more  than  pure 
nonsense?  In  the  work  of  an  insidious  non-believer, 
it  would  be  set  down  as  part  of  his  fraud.  Mrs.  Ward 
evidently  gives  it  in  absolute  good  faith.  It  is  one  in 
a  series  of  indications,  by  which  this  gifted  authoress 
conveys  to  us  what  appears  to  be  her  thoroughly  genuine 
belief  that  historical  Christianity  has,  indeed,  broad 
grounds  and  deep  roots  in  emotion,  but  in  reason  none 
whatever. 

The  reA7elation  to  the  wife  is  terrible ;  but  Catherine 
clings  to  her  religion  on  a  basis  essentially  akin  to  that 
of  Newcome  ;  and  the  faith  of  these  eighteen  centuries, 
and  of  the  prime  countries  of  the  world, 

“  Bella,  immortal,  benefica 
Fede,  ai  trionfi  avvezza,”  f 

is  dismissed  without  a  hearing. 


*  ii.  270. 


f  JVlanzoni’s  ‘Cinque  Maggio.’ 


£  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  85 

For  my  own  part,  I  humbly  retort  on  Robert  Elsmere. 
Considered  intellectually,  his  proceedings  in  regard  to 
belief  appear  to  me,  from  the  beginning  as  well  as  in 
the  downward  process,  to  present  dismal  gaps.  But  the 
emotional  part  of  his  character  is  complete — nay,  redun- 
dant.  There  is  no  moral  weakness  or  hesitation.  There 
rises  up  before  him  the  noble  maxim,  assigned  to  the 
so-called  Mr.  Grey  (with  whom  he  has  a  consultation 
of  foregone  conclusions),  “  Conviction  is  the  conscience 
of  the  mind.” 

He  renounces  his  parish  and  his  orders.  He  still 
believes  in  God,  and  accepts  the  historical  Christ  as  a 
wonderful  man,  good  among  the  good,  but  a  primus 
inter  pares.  Passing  through  a  variety  of  stages,  he 
devotes  himself  to  the  religion  of  humanity ;  reconciles 
to  the  new  gospel,  by  shoals,  skilled  artisans  of  London 
who  had  been  totally  inaccessible  to  the  old  one ;  and 
nobly  kills  himself  with  overwork,  passing  away  in  a 
final  flood  of  light.  He  founds  and  leaves  behind  him 
the  “New  Christian  Brotherhood  ”  of  Elgood  Street ; 
and  we  are  at  the  close  apprised,  with  enthusiastic 
sincerity,  that  this  is  the  true  effort  of  the  race,*  and 

“  Others  I  doubt  not,  if  not  we, 

The  issue  of  our  toils  shall  see.” 

Who  can  grudge  to  this  absolutely  pure-minded  and 
very  distinguished  writer  the  comfort  of  having  at  last 
found  the  true  specific  for  the  evils  and  miseries  of  the 
world?  None  surely  who  bear  in  mind  that  the  Salva¬ 
tion  Army  has  been  known  to  proclaim  itself  the  Church 
of  the  future,  or  who  happen  to  know  that  Bunsen, 


*  iii.  411 5  comp,  276. 


86  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

when  in  1841  he  had  procured  the  foundation  of  the 
bishopric  of  Jerusalem,  suggested  in  private  correspond¬ 
ence  his  hope  that  this  might  be  the  Church  which  would 
meet  the  glorified  Redeemer  at  His  coming. 

It  is  necessary  here  to  revert  to  the  Squire.  Himself 
the  fiolpa  7re7rpa)/x€j/?7,  the  supreme  arbiter  of  destinies 
in  the  book,  he  is  somewhat  unkindly  treated  ;  his  mind 
at  length  gives  way,  and  a  darkling  veil  is  drawn  over 
the  close.  Here  seems  to  be  a  little  literary  intoler¬ 
ance,  something  even  savouring  of  a  religious  test. 
Robert  Elsmere  stopped  in  the  downward  slide  at 
theism,  and  it  calms  and  glorifies  his  death-bed.  But 
the  Squire  had  not  stopped  there.  He  had  said  to 
Elsmere,'""  “You  are  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  Blacks. 
All  this  theistic  philosophy  of  yours  only  means  so  much 
grist  to  their  mill  in  the  end.”  But  the  great  guide  is 
dismissed  from  his  guiding  office  as  summarily  as  all 
other  processes  are  conducted,  which  are  required  by 
the  purpose  of  the  writer.  Art  everywhere  gives  way 
to  purpose.  Elsmere  no  more  shows  cause  for  his 
theism  than  he  had  shown  it  against  his  Christianity. 
Why  was  not  Mr.  Wendover  allowed  at  least  the  con¬ 
solations  which  gave  a  satisfaction  to  David  Hume  ? 

Hot  yet,  however,  may  I  wholly  part  from  this  sketch 
of  the  work.  It  is  so  large  that  much  must  be  omitted. 
But  there  is  one  limb  of  the  plan  which  is  peculiar. 
Of  the  two  sisters  not  yet  named,  one,  Agnes  by  name, 
appears  only  as  quasi-chaperon  or  as  “  dumrnie.”  But 
Rose,  the  third,  has  beauty,  the  gift  of  a  musical  artist, 
and  quick  and  plastic  social  faculties.  Long  and 
elaborate  love  relations  are  developed  between  her  and 


*  iii.  226. 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  87 

the  poco-curante  tutor  and  friend,  Mr.  Langham.  Twice 
she  is  fairly  embarked  in  passion  for  him,  and  twice  he 
jilts  her.  Still  she  is  not  discouraged,  and  she  finally 
marries  a  certain  Flaxman,  an  amiable  but  somewhat 
manufactured  character.  From  the  standing  point  of 
art,  can  this  portion  of  the  book  fail  to  stir  much  mis¬ 
giving  ?  We  know  from  Shakespeare  how  the  loves  of 
two  sisters  can  be  comprised  within  a  single  play.  But 
while  the  drama  requires  only  one  connected  action,  the 
novel,  and  eminently  this  novel,  aims  rather  at  the 
exhibition  of  a  life  :  and  the  reader  of  these  volumes 
may  be  apt  to  say  that  in  working  two  such  lives,  as 
those  of  Catherine  and  Rose,  through  so  many  stages, 
the  authoress  has  departed  from  previous  example,  and 
has  loaded  her  ship,  though  a  gallant  one,  with  more 
cargo  than  it  will  bear. 

It  may  indeed  be  that  Mrs.  Ward  has  been  led  to 
charge  her  tale  with  such  a  weight  of  matter  from  a 
desire  to  give  philosophical  completeness  to  her  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  main  springs  of  action  which  mark  the 
life  of  the  period.  For  in  Robert  Elsmere  we  have  the 
tempered  but  aggressive  action  of  the  sceptical  intellect ; 
in  Catherine  the  strong  reaction  against  it ;  in  Rose 
the  art-life ;  and  in  Langham  the  literary  and  cultivated 
indifference  of  the  time.  The  comprehensiveness  of  such 
a  picture  may  be  admitted,  without  withdrawing  the 
objection  that,  as  a  practical  result,  the  cargo  is  too 
heavy  for  the  vessel. 

Apart  from  this  question,  is  it  possible  to  pass  without 
a  protest  the  double  jilt?  Was  Rose,  with  her  quick 
and  self-centred  life,  a  well-chosen  corpus  vile  upon  whom 
to  pass  this  experiment  ?  More  broadly,  though  credible 
perhaps  for  a  man,  is  such  a  process  in  any  case  possible 


88  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

by  the  laws  of  art  for  a  woman?  Does  she  not  violate 
the  first  conditions  of  her  nature  in  exposing  herself  to 
so  piercing  an  insult  ?  An  enhancement  of  delicate  self- 
respect  is  one  among  the  compensations,  which  Provi¬ 
dence  has  supplied  in  woman,  to  make  up  for  a  deficiency 
in  some  ruder  kinds  of  strength. 

Again,  I  appeal  to  the  laws  of  art  against  the  final 
disposal  of  Catherine.  Having  much  less  of  ability  than 
her  husband,  she  is  really  drawn  with  greater  force  and 
truth ;  and  possesses  so  firm  a  fibre  that  when,  having 
been  bred  in  a  school  of  some  intolerance,  she  begins  to 
blunt  the  edge  of  her  resistance,  and  to  tolerate  in  divers 
ways,  without  adopting,  the  denuded  system  of  her 
husband,  we  begin  to  feel  that  the  key-note  of  her 
character  is  being  tampered  with.  After  his  death,  the 
discords  become  egregious.  She  remains,  as  she  sup¬ 
poses,  orthodox  and  tenaciously  Evangelical.  But  every 
knee  must  be  made  to  bow  to  Elsmere.  So  she  does 
not  return  to  the  northern  valley  and  her  mother’s 
declining  age,  but  in  London  devotes  her  week-days  to 
carrying  on  the  institutions  of  charity  he  had  founded 
on  behalf  of  his  new  religion.  He  had  himself  indig¬ 
nantly  remonstrated  with  some  supposed  clergyman, 
who,  in  the  guise  of  a  Broad  Churchman,  at  once  held 
Elsmere’s  creed  and  discharged  externally  the  office  of 
an  Anglican  priest.  He  therefore  certainly  is  not 
responsible  for  having  taught  her  to  believe  the  chasm 
between  them  was  a  narrow  one.  Yet  she  leaps  or 
steps  across  it  every  Sunday,  attending  her  church  in 
the  forenoon,  and  looming  as  regularly  every  afternoon 
in  the  temple  of  the  New  Brotherhood.  Here  surely 
the  claims  of  system  have  marred  the  work  of  art. 
Characters  might  have  been  devised  whom  this  see-saw 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OP  BELIEF.  89 

would  have  suited  well  enough  ;  but  for  the  Catherine 
of  the  first  volume  it  is  an  unmitigated  solecism ;  a 
dismal,  if  not  even  a  degrading  compromise. 

It  has  been  observed  that  the  women  of  the  book  are 
generally  drawn  with  more  felicity  than  the  men.  As 
a  work  of  art,  Rose  is  in  my  view  the  most  successful 
of  the  women,  and  among  the  men  the  Squire.  With 
the  Squire  Mrs.  Ward  is  not  in  sympathy,  for  he  destroys 
too  much,  and  he  does  nothing  but  destroy.  She  cannot 
be  in  sympathy  with  Rose  ;  for  Rose,  who  is  selfishly 
and  heartlessly  used,  is  herself  selfish  and  heartless ; 
with  this  aggravation,  that  she  has  grown  up  in  imme¬ 
diate  contact  with  a  noble  elder  sister,  and  yet  has  not 
caught  a  particle  of  nobleness,  as  well  as  in  view  of  an 
infirm  mother  to  whom  she  scarcely  gives  a  care.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  her  Robert,  who  has  all  Mrs.  Ward’s 
affection  and  almost  her  worship,  and  who  is  clothed 
with  a  perfect  panoply  of  high  qualities,  she  appears  to 
be  less  successful  and  more  artificial.  In  the  recently 
published  correspondence  *  of  Sir  Henry  Taylor,  who 
was  by  no  means  given  to  paradox,  we  are  told  that 
great  earnestness  of  purpose  and  strong  adhesive  sym¬ 
pathies  in  an  author  are  adverse  to  the  freedom  and 
independence  of  treatment,  the  disembarrassed  move¬ 
ment  of  the  creative  hand,  which  are  required  in  the 
supreme  poetic  office  of  projecting  character  on  the  canvas. 
If  there  be  truth  in  this  novel  and  interesting  sugges¬ 
tion,  we  cannot  wonder  at  finding  the  result  exhibited 
in  £  Robert  Elsmere,’  for  never  was  a  book  written  with 
greater  persistency  and  intensity  of  purpose.  Every 
page  of  its  principal  narrative  is  adapted  and  addressed 


*  Page  17, 


90 


c  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

by  Mrs.  Ward  to  the  final  aim  which  is  bone  of  her 
bone  and  flesh  of  her  flesh.  This  aim  is  to  expel  the 
preternatural  element  from  Christianity,  to  destroy  its 
dogmatic  structure,  yet  to  keep  intact  the  moral  and 
spiritual  results.  The  Brotherhood  presented  to  us 
with  such  sanguine  hopefulness  is  a  u  Christian  ”  brother¬ 
hood,  but  with  a  Christianity  emptied  of  that  which 
Christians  believe  to  be  the  soul  and  springhead  of  its 
life.  For  Christianity,  in  the  established  Christian 
sense,  is  the  presentation  to  us  not  of  abstract  dogmas 
for  acceptance,  but  of  a  living  and  a  Divine  Person,  to 
whom  they  are  to  be  united  by  a  vital  incorporation. 
It  is  the  reunion  to  Cod  of  a  nature  severed  from  God 
by  sin,  and  the  process  is  one,  not  of  teaching  lessons, 
but  of  imparting  a  new  life,  with  its  ordained  equipment 
of  gifts  and  powers. 

It  is,  I  apprehend,  a  complete  mistake  to  suppose,  as 
appears  to  be  the  supposition  of  this  remarkable  book, 
that  all  which  has  to  be  done  with  Scripture,  in  order 
to  effect  the  desired  transformation  of  religion,  is  to 
eliminate  from  it  the  miraculous  element.  Tremendous 
as  is  the  sweeping  process  which  extrudes  the  Resur¬ 
rection,  there  is  much  else,  which  is  in  no  sense  miracu¬ 
lous,  to  extrude  along  with  it.  The  Procession  of  Palms, 
for  example,  is  indeed  profoundly  significant,  but  it  is 
in  no  way  miraculous.  Yet,  in  any  consistent  history 
of  a  Robert  Elsmere’s  Christ,  there  could  be  no  Proces¬ 
sion  of  Palms.  Unless  it  be  the  healing  of  the  ear  of 
Malchus,  there  is  not  a  miraculous  event  between  the 
commencement  of  the  Passion  and  the  Crucifixion  itself. 
Yet  the  notes  of  a  superhuman  majesty  overspread  the 
whole.  We  talk  of  all  religions  as  essentially  one ;  but 
what  religion  presents  to  its  votaries  such  a  tale  as  this  ? 


‘ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  91 


Bishop  Temple,  in  his  sermons  at  Rugby,  has  been 
among  the  later  teachers  who  have  shown  how  the  whole 
behaviour  of  our  Lord,  in  this  extremity  of  His  abase¬ 
ment,  seems  more  than  ever  to  transcend  all  human 
limits,  and  to  exhibit  without  arguing  His  Divinity. 
The  parables,  again,  are  not  less  refractory  than  the 
miracles,  and  must  disappear  along  with  them  :  for  what 
parables  are  there  which  are  not  built  upon  the  idea  of 
His  unique  and  transcendent  office  1  The  Gospel  of 
St.  John  has  much  less  of  miracle  than  the  Synoptics ; 
but  it  must  of  course  descend  from  its  pedestal,  in  all 
that  is  most  its  own.  And  what  is  gained  by  all  this 
condemnation,  until  we  get  rid  of  the  Baptismal  formula  1 
It  is  a  question  not  of  excision  from  the  Gospels,  but  of 
tearing  them  into  shreds.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  deny 
that  the  parts  which  remain,  or  which  remain  legible, 
are  vital  parts  ;  but  this  is  no  more  than  to  say  that 
there  may  remain  vital  organs  of  a  man,  after  the  man 
himself  has  been  cut  in  pieces. 

I  have  neither  space  nor  capacity  at  command  for  the 
adequate  discussion  of  the  questions,  which  shattered 
the  faith  of  Robert  Elsmere :  whether  miracles  can 
happen,  and  whether  “an  universal  preconception”  in 
their  favour  at  the  birth  of  Christianity  “  governing 
the  work  of  all  men  of  all  schools,”  *  adequately  accounts 
for  the  place  which  has  been  given  to  them  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  available  proofs  of  the  Divine  Mission 
of  our  Lord.  But  I  demur  on  all  the  points  to  the 
authority  of  the  Squire,  and  even  of  Mr.  Grey. 

The  impossibility  of  miracle  is  a  doctrine  which 
appears  to  claim  for  its  basis  the  results  of  physical 


*  ii.  246,  247. 


92  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

inquiry.  They  point  to  unbroken  sequences  in  material 
nature,  ancl  refer  every  phenomenon  to  its  immediate 
antecedent  as  adequate  to  its  orderly  production.  But 
the  appeal  to  these  great  achievements  of  our  time  is 
itself  disorderly,  for  it  calls  upon  natural  science  to 
decide  a  question  which  lies  beyond  its  precinct.  There 
is  an  extraneous  force  of  will  which  acts  upon  matter 
in  derogation  of  laws  purely  physical,  or  alters  the 
balance  of  those  laws  among  themselves.  It  can  be 
neither  philosophical  nor  scientific  to  proclaim  the  im¬ 
possibility  of  miracle,  until  philosoj)hy  or  science  shall 
have  determined  a  limit,  beyond  which  this  extraneous 
force  of  will,  so  familiar  to  our  experience,  cannot  act 
upon  or  deflect  the  natural  order. 

Next,  as  to  that  avidity  for  miracle,  which  is  sup¬ 
posed  by  the  omniscient  Squire  to  account  for  the 
invention  of  it.  Let  it  be  granted,  for  argument’s  sake, 
that  if  the  Gospel  had  been  intended  only  for  the  J ews, 
they  at  least  were  open  to  the  imputation  of  a  biassing 
and  blinding  appetite  for  signs  and  wonders.  But 
scarcely  had  the  Christian  scheme  been  established 
among  the  Jews,  when  it  began  to  take  root  among 
the  Gentiles.  It  will  hardly  be  contended  that  these 
Gentiles,  who  detested  and  despised  the  Jewish  race, 
had  any  predisposition  to  receive  a  religion  at  their 
hands  or  upon  their  authority.  Were  they  then,  during 
the  century  which  succeeded  our  Lord’s  birth,  so  swayed 
by  a  devouring  thirst  for  the  supernatural  as  to  account 
for  the  early  reception,  and  the  steady  if  not  rapid 
growth,  of  the  Christian  creed  among  them?  The 
statement  of  the  Squire,  which  carries  Robert  Els- 
mere,  is  that  the  preconception  in  favour  of  miracles 
at  the  period  “governed  the  work  of  all  men  of  all 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  93 

schools.”  *  A  most  gross  and  palpable  exaggeration.  In 
philosophy  the  Epicurean  school  was  atheistic,  the  Stoic 
school  was  ambiguously  theistic,  and  doubt  nestled  in 
the  Academy.  Christianity  had  little  direct  contact 
with  these  schools,  but  they  acted  on  the  tone  of  thought, 
in  a  manner  not  favourable  but  adverse  to  the  pre¬ 
conception. 

Meantime  the  power  of  religion  was  in  decay.  The 
springs  of  it  in  the  general  mind  and  heart  were 
weakened.  A  deluge  of  profligacy  had  gone  far  to 
destroy,  at  Rome,  even  the  external  habit  of  public 
worship ;  and  Horace,  himself  an  indifferentist,  j  de¬ 
nounces  the  neglect  and  squalor  of  the  temples ;  while 
further  on  we  have  the  stern  and  emphatic  testimony 
of  Juvenal— 

“  Esse  aliquid  Manes,  et  snbterranea  regna, 

Et  contum,  et  Stygio  ranas  in  gurgite  nigras, 

Nee  pueri  credunt,  nisi  qui  nondura  sere  lavantur.  ”  j 

The  age  was  not  an  age  of  faith,  among  thinking  and 
ruling  classes,  either  in  natural  or  in  supernatural  reli¬ 
gion.  There  had  been  indeed  a  wonderful  “evangelical 
preparation  ”  in  the  sway  of  the  Greek  language,  in  the 
unifying  power  of  the  Roman  State  and  Empire,  and 
in  the  utter  moral  failure  of  the  grand  and  dominant 
civilisations ;  but  not  in  any  virgin  soil,  yearning  for 
the  sun,  the  rain,  or  the  seed  of  truth. 

But  the  Squire,  treading  in  the  footprints  of  Gibbon’s 
fifteenth  Chapter,  leaves  it  to  be  understood  that,  in 
the  appeal  to  the  supernatural,  the  new  religion  enjoyed 
an  exclusive  as  well  as  an  overpowering  advantage ; 


*  ii.  247. 


f  Hor.  ‘  Od.’  i*  34;  iii.  6. 


x  ‘  Sat.’  ii.  150. 


94  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 


that  it  had  a  patent  for  miracle,  which  none  could 
infringe.  Surely  this  is  an  error  even  more  gross  than 
the  statement  already  cited  about  all  men  of  all  schools. 
The  supernatural  was  interwoven  with  the  entire  fabric 
of  the  religion  of  the  Roman  State,  which,  if  weak  and 
effete  as  a  religious  discipline,  was  of  extraordinary 
power  as  a  social  institution.  It  stood,  if  not  on  faith, 
yet  on  nationality,  on  tradition,  on  rich  endowments,  on 
the  deeply  interested  attachment  of  a  powerful  aristo¬ 
cracy,  and  on  that  policy  of  wide  conciliation,  which 
gave  to  so  many  creeds,  less  exclusive  than  the  Christian, 
a  cause  common  with  its  own. 

Looking  for  a  comprehensive  description  of  miracles, 
we  might  say  that  they  constitute  a  language  of  heaven 
embodied  in  material  signs,  by  which  communication 
is  established  between  the  Deity  and  man,  outside  the 
daily  course  of  nature  and  experience.  Distinctions 
may  be  taken  between  one  kind  of  miracle  and  another. 
But  none  of  these  are  distinctions  in  principle.  Some¬ 
times  they  are  alleged  to  be  the  offspring  of  a  divine 
power  committed  to  the  hands  of  particular  men ;  some¬ 
times  they  are  simple  manifestations  unconnected  with 
human  agency,  and  carrying  with  them  their  own 
meaning,  such  as  the  healings  in  Bethesda;  sometimes 
they  are  a  system  of  events  and  of  phenomena  subject 
to  authoritative  and  privileged  interpretation.  Miracle, 
portent,  prodigy  and  sign  are  all  various  forms  of  one 
and  the  same  thing,  namely,  an  invasion  of  the  known 
and  common  natural  order  from  the  side  of  the  super¬ 
natural.  In  the  last-named  case,  there  is  an  expression 
of  the  authorised  human  judgment  upon  it,  while  in  the 
earlier  ones  there  is  only  a  special  appeal  to  it.  They 
rest  upon  one  and  the  same  basis.  We  may  assign  to 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  95 

miracle  a  body  and  a  soul.  It  has  for  its  body  some¬ 
thing  accepted  as  being  either  in  itself  or  in  its  incidents 
outside  the  known  processes  of  ordinary  nature,  and  for 
its  soul  the  alleged  message  which  in  one  shape  or 
another  it  helps  to  convey  from  the  Deity  to  man. 
This  supernatural  element,  as  such,  was  at  least  as 
familiar  to  the  Roman  heathenism,  as  to  the  Christian 
scheme.  It  was  indeed  more  highly  organised.  It  was 
embodied  in  the  regular  and  normal  practice  of  the 
ministers  of  religion,  and  especially,  under  the  juris¬ 
diction  of  the  pontifical  college,  it  was  the  regular  and 
standing  business  of  the  augurs  to  observe,  report,  and 
interpret  the  supernatural  signs,  by  which  the  gods 
gave  reputed  instructions  to  men  outside  the  course 
of  nature.  Sometimes  it  was  by  strange  atmospheric 
phenomena ;  sometimes  by  physical  prodigies,  as  when 
a  woman  produced  a  snake, *  or  a  calf  was  born  with 
its  head  in  its  thigh ;  |  whereupon,  says  Tacitus,  secuta 
harusjpicum  inter pretatio.  Sometimes  through  events 
only  preternatural  from  the  want  of  assignable  cause, 
as  when  the  statue  of  Julius  Caesar,  on  an  island  in  the 
Tiber,  turned  itself  round  from  west  to  east.J  Some¬ 
times  with  an  approximation  to  the  Christian  signs  and 
wonders,  as  when  Vespasian  removed  with  spittle  the 
tabes  oculorum ,  and  restored  the  impotent  hand.§  It 
does  not  readily  appear  why  in  principle  the  Romans, 
who  had  the  supernatural  for  their  daily  food  in  a  shape 
sustained  by  the  unbroken  tradition  of  their  country, 
should  be  violently  attracted  by  the  mere  exhibition  of 
it  from  a  despised  source,  and  in  a  manner  less  formal. 


f  Ibid.  xv.  47. 
§  Ibid,  iv.  81. 


*  Tac.  ‘Ann.’  xiv.  12. 

X  Tac.  ‘  Hist/  i.  86. 


96  ‘ROBERT  elsmere:’  the  battle  of  belief. 

less  organised,  and  less  known.  In  one  important  way 
we  know  the  accepted  supernatural  of  the  Romans 
operated  with  direct  and  telling  power  against  the 
Gospel.  Si  cselum  stetit,  si  terra  movit ,  Christianos  ad 
leones  *  Or,  in  the  unsuspected  language  of  Tacitus, 
dim  latius  metuitur ,  trepidatione  vulgi ,  invalidus  quisque 
obtriti.  When  the  portents  were  unfavourable,  and 
there  was  fear  of  their  extension,  the  weak  had  to  suffer 
for  the  popular  alarms.! 

The  upshot  of  the  matter  then  appears  to  be  some¬ 
thing  like  this. 

The  lowly  and  despised  preachers  of  Christian  portent 
were  confronted  everywhere  by  the  highborn  and  accom¬ 
plished  caste  sworn  to  the  service  of  the  gods,  familiar 
from  centuries  of  tradition  with  the  supernatural,  and 
supported  at  every  point  with  the  whole  force  and 
influence  of  civil  authority.  Nor  has  there  ever  pro¬ 
bably  been  a  case  of  a  contest  so  unequal,  as  far  as  the 
powers  of  this  world  are  concerned.  Tainted  in  its 
origin  by  its  connection  with  the  detested  Judaism, 
odious  to  the  prevailing  tone  by  its  exclusiveness,  it 
rested  originally  upon  the  testimony  of  men  few,  poor 
and  ignorant,  and  for  a  length  of  time  no  human  genius 
was  enlisted  in  its  service,  with  the  single  exception 
of  St.  Paul.  All  that  we  of  this  nineteenth  century 
know,  and  know  so  well,  under  the  name  of  vested 
interests,  is  insignificant  compared  with  the  embattled 
fortress  that  these  humble  Christians  had  to  storm. 
And  the  Squire,  if  he  is  to  win  the  day  with  minds  less 
ripe  for  conversion  than  Robert  Elsmere,  must  produce 
some  other  suit  of  weapons  from  his  armoury. 


*  Tertul],  ‘  Apol.  40. 


f  Tac.  ‘Ami.’  xii.  43. 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  97 

With  him  I  now  part  company,  as  his  thoroughgoing 
negation  parts  company  with  the  hybrid  scheme  of 
Mrs.  Ward.  It  is  of  that  scheme  that  I  now  desire  to 
take  a  view  immediately  practical. 

In  a  concise  but  striking  notice  in  the  Times  *  it  is 
placed  in  the  category  of  “  clever  attacks  upon  revealed 
religion.”  It  certainly  offers  us  a  substitute  for  revealed 
religion ;  and  possibly  the  thought  of  tho  book  might 
be  indicated  in  these  words  :  “  The  Christianity  accepted 
in  England  is  a  good  thing ;  but  come  with  me,  and  I 
will  show  you  a  better.” 

It  may,  I  think,  be  fairly  described  as  a  devout 
attempt,  made  in  good  faith,  to  simplify  the  difficult 
mission  of  religion  in  the  world  by  discarding  the 
supposed  lumber  of  the  Christian  theology,  while  retain¬ 
ing  and  applying,  in  their  undiminished  breadth  of 
scope,  the  whole  personal,  social,  and  spiritual  morality 
which  has  now,  as  matter  of  fact,  entered  into  the 
patrimony  of  Christendom ;  and,  since  Christendom  is 
the  dominant  power  of  the  world,  into  the  patrimony 
of  our  race.  It  is  impossible  indeed  to  conceive  a  more 
religious  life  than  the  later  life  of  Robert  Elsmere,  in 
his  sense  of  the  word  religion.  And  that  sense  is  far 
above  the  sense  in  which  religion  is  held,  or  practically 
applied,  by  great  multitudes  of  Christians.  It  is, 
however,  a  new  form  of  religion.  The  question  is,  can 
it  be  actually  and  beneficially  substituted  for  the  old 
one'?  It  abolishes,  of  course,  the  whole  authority  of 
Scripture.  It  abolishes  also  Church,  priesthood  or 
ministry,  sacraments,  and  the  whole  established  ma¬ 
chinery  which  trains  the  Christian  as  a  member  of  a 


* 


I. 


Times ,  April  7,  1888. 


H 


98  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF, 

religious  society.  These  have  been  regarded  by  fifty 
generations  of  men  as  wings  of  the  soul.  It  is  still 
required  of  us  by  Mrs.  Ward  to  fly,  and  to  fly  as  high 
as  ever ;  but  it  is  to  fly  without  wings.  For  baptism, 
we  have  a  badge  of  silver,  and  inscription  in  a  book.* 
For  the  Eucharist  there  is  at  an  ordinary  meal  a  recital 
of  the  fragment,  “This  do  in  remembrance  of  Me.” 
The  children  respond,  “  Jesus,  we  remember  Thee 
always.”  It  is  hard  to  say  that  prayer  is  retained. 
In  the  Elgood  Street  service  “it  is  rather  an  act  of 
adoration  and  faith,  than  a  prayer  properly  so  called,”  f 
and  it  appears  that  memory  and  trust  are  the  instru¬ 
ments  on  which  the  individual  is  to  depend,  for  main¬ 
taining  his  communion  with  God.  It  would  be  curious 
to  know  how  the  New  Brotherhood  is  to  deal  with  the 
great  mystery  of  marriage,  perhaps  the  truest  touchstone 
of  religious  revolution. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader  that  in  the  great 
duel  between  the  old  faith  and  the  new,  as  it  is  fought 
in  c  Robert  Elsmere,’  there  is  a  great  inequality  in  the 
distribution  of  the  arms.  Reasoning  is  the  weapon  of 
the  new  scheme ;  emotion  the  sole  resource  of  the  old. 
Neither  Catherine  nor  Newcome  have  a  word  to  say 
beyond  the  expression  of  feeling ;  and  it  is  when  he  has 
adopted  the  negative  side  that  the  hero  himself  is  fully 
introduced  to  the  faculty  of  argument.  This  is  a 
singular  arrangement,  especially  in  the  case  of  a  writer 
who  takes  a  generous  view  of  the  Christianity  that  she 
only  desires  to  supplant  by  an  improved  device.  The 
explanation  may  be  simple.  There  are  abundant  signs 
in  the  book  that  the  negative  speculatists  have  been 


*  iii.  358. 


f  iii.  360. 


‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  99 

consulted  if  not  ransacked  ;  but  there  is  nowhere  a  smn 
that  the  authoress  has  made  herself  acquainted  with  the 
Christian  apologists,  old  or  recent ;  or  has  weighed  the 
evidences  derivable  from  the  Christian  history  ;  or  has 
taken  measure  of  the  relation  in  which  the  doctrines  of 
grace  have  historically  stood  to  the  production  of  the 
noblest,  purest,  and  greatest  characters  of  the  Christian 
ages.  If  such  be  the  case,  she  has  skipped  lightly  (to 
put  it  no  higher)  over  vast  mental  spaces  of  literature 
and  learning  relevant  to  the  case,  and  has  given  sentence 
in  the  cause  without  hearing  the  evidence. 

It  might  perhaps  be  not  unjust  to  make  a  retort  upon 
the  authoress,  and  say  that  while  she  believes  herself 
simply  to  be  yielding  obedience  to  reason,  her  movement 
is  in  reality  impelled  by  bias.  We  have  been  born  into 
an  age  when,  in  the  circles  of  literature  and  science, 
there  is  a  strong  anti-dogmatic  leaning,  a  prejudice  which 
may  largely  intercept  the  action  of  judgment.  Partly 
because  belief  has  its  superstitions,  and  the  detection 
of  these  superstitions  opens  the  fabric  to  attack,  like  a 
breach  in  the  wall  of  a  fortress  when  at  a  given  point  it 
has  been  stuffed  with  unsound  material.  Partly  because 
the  rapidity  of  the  movement  of  the  time  predisposes 
the  mind  to  novelty.  Partly  because  the  multiplication 
of  enjoyments,  through  the  progress  of  commerce  and 
invention,  enhances  the  materialism  of  life,  strengthens 
by  the  forces  of  habit  the  hold  of  the  seen  world  upon 
us,  and  leaves  less  both  of  brain  power  and  of  heart 
power  available  for  the  unseen.  Enormous  accretion 
of  wealth  is  no  more  deprived  of  its  sting  now,  than  it 
was  when  Saint  Paul  penned  his  profoundly  penetrating 
admonition  to  Timothy.*  And  when,  under  the  present 


*  1  Tim.  iv.  9. 


100  ‘ROBERT  elsmere:’  the  battle  of  belief. 

conditions,  it  happens  that  the  environment  of  personal 
association  represents  either  concentrated  hostility  or 
hopeless  diversity  in  religion,  there  may  be  hardly  a 
chance  for  firm  and  measured  belief.  What  we  find  to 
be  troublesome,  yet  from  some  inward  protest  are  not 
prepared  wholly  to  reject,  we  like  to  simplify  and  reduce  ; 
and  the  instances  of  good  and  devoted  men  who  are- 
averse  to  dogma,  more  frequent  than  usual  in  this  age, 
are  powerful  to  persuade  us  that  in  lightening  the  cargo 
we  are  really  securing  the  safe  voyage  of  the  ship. 
“  About  dogma  we  hear  dispute,  but  the  laws  of  high 
social  morality  no  speculation  is  disposed  to  question. 
Why  not  get  rid  of  the  disputable,  and  concentrate  all 
our  strength  on  grasping  the  undisputed  ?  ”  We  may 
by  a  little  wresting  quote  high  authority  for  this  recom¬ 
mendation.  “  Whereto  we  have  already  attained  .  .  . 
let  us  mind  the  same  thing.  .  .  .  And  if  in  anything  ye 
be  otherwise  minded,  God  shall  reveal  even  this  unto 
you.”  *  It  is  not  difficult  to  conceive  how,  under  the 
action  of  causes  with  which  the  time  abounds,  pure  and 
lofty  minds,  wholly  guiltless  of  the  intention  to  impair 
or  lower  the  motive  forces  of  Christianity,  may  be  led 
into  the  snare,  and  may  even  conceive  a  process  in  itself 
destructive  to  be,  on  the  contrary,  conservative  and 
reparatory. 

But  it  is  a  snare  none  the  less.  And  first  let  us 
recollect,  when  we  speak  of  renouncing  Christian  dogma, 
what  it  is  that  we  mean.  The  germ  of  it  as  a  system 
lies  in  the  formula,  “  Baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  f  This 
was  speedily  developed  into  the  substance  of  the  Apostles’ 


*  Phil,  iii.  15,  16. 


f  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


‘ROBERT  ELSMERE:’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  101 

Creed  :  the  Creed  which  forms  our  confession  of  in¬ 
dividual  faith,  in  baptism  and  on  the  bed  of  death. 
Now  belief  in  God,  which  forms  (so  to  speak)  the  first 
great  limb  of  the  Creed,  is  strictly  a  dogma,  and  is  on 
no  account,  according  to  Mrs.  Ward,  to  be  surrendered. 
But  the  second  and  greatest  portion  of  the  Creed  con¬ 
tains  twelve  propositions,  of  which  nine  are  matters  of 
fact,  and  the  whole  twelve  have  for  their  office  the 
setting  forth  to  us  of  a  Personage,  to  whom  a  great 
dispensation  has  been  committed.  The  third  division  of 
the  Creed  is  more  dogmatic,  but  it  is  bound  down  like 
the  second  to  earth  and  fact  by  the  article  of  the 
Church,  a  visible  and  palpable  institution.  The  principal 
purely  dogmatic  part  of  this  great  document  is  the  part 
which  is  to  be  retained.  And  we,  who  accept  the 
Christian  story,  are  entitled  to  say,  that  to  extrude  from 
a  history,  tied  to  strictly  human  facts,  that  by  which 
they  become  a  standing  channel  of  organic  connection 
between  Deity  and  humanity,  is  not  presumptively 
a  very  hopeful  mode  of  strengthening  our  belief  in 
God,  thus  deprived  of  its  props  and  accessories.  The 
chasm  between  deity  and  the  human  soul,  over  which 
the  scheme  of  Redemption  has  thrown  a  bridge, 
again  yawns  beneath  our  feet,  in  all  its  breadth  and 
depth. 

Although  the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  not  put  promi¬ 
nently  forward  in  this  book,  but  rather  the  broader 
objection  to  supernatural  manifestations,  yet  it  will  be 
found  to  be  the  real  hinge  of  the  entire  question.  For, 
if  Christ  be  truly  God,  few  will  deny  that  the  exceptional 
incidents,  which  follow  in  the  train  of  His  appearance 
upon  earth,  raise,  in  substance,  no  new  difficulty.  Is  it 
true,  then,  that  Christians  have  been  so  divided  on  this 


102  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

♦  s 

subject  as  to  promise  us  a  return  of  peace  and  progress 
by  its  elimination  % 

To  answer  this  question  rightly,  we  must  not  take  the 
humour  of  this  or  that  particular  time  or  country,  but 
must  regard  the  Christian  system  in  its  whole  extension, 
and  its  whole  duration.  So  regarding  it,  we  shall  find 
that  the  assertion,  far  from  being  true,  is  glaringly 
untrue.  The  truth  in  rude  outline  is  surely  this.  That 
when  the  Gospel  went  out  into  the  world,  the  greatest 
of  all  the  groups  of  controversies,  which  progressively 
arose  within  its  borders,  was  that  which  concerned  the 
true  nature  of  the  Object  of  worship.  That  these 
controversies  ran  through  the  most  important  shapes, 
which  have  been  known  to  the  professing  Church  of 
later  years,  and  through  many  more.  That  they  rose, 
especially  in  the  fourth  century,  to  such  a  height,  amidst 
the  conflict  of  councils,  popes,  and  theologians,  that  the 
private  Christian  was  too  often  like  the  dove  wandering 
over  the  waters,  and  seeking  in  vain  a  resting-place  for 
the  sole  of  his  foot.  That  the  whole  mind  and  heart 
of  the  Church  were  given,  in  their  whole  strength  and 
through  a  lengthened  period,  to  find  some  solution  of 
these  controversies.  That  many  generations  passed 
before  Arianism  wholly  ceased  to  be  the  basis  of 
Christian  profession  in  spots  or  sections  of  Christendom, 
but  not  so  long  before  the  central  thought  of  the  body 
as  a  whole  had  come  to  be  fixed  in  the  form  of  what  has 
ever  since,  and  now  for  over  fourteen  hundred  years, 
been  known  as  the  orthodox  belief.  The  authority  of 
this  tradition,  based  upon  the  Scriptures,  has  through 
all  that  period  been  upheld  at  the  highest  point  to 
which  a  marvellous  continuity  and  universality  could 
raise  it.  It  was  not  impeached  by  the  questioning  mind 


1  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  103 


of  the  thirteenth  century.  The  scientific  revolution, 
which  opened  to  us  the  antipodes  and  the  solar  system, 
did  not  shake  it.  The  more  subtle  dangers  of  the 
Renascence  were  dangers  to  Christianity  as  a  whole,  but 
not  to  this  great  element  of  Christianity  as  a  part. 
And  when  the  terrible  struggles  of  the  Reformation 
stirred  every  coarse  human  passion  as  well  as  every  fond 
religious  interest  into  fury,  even  then  the  Ricene  belief, 
as  Mohler  in  his  ‘  Symbolik’  has  so  well  observed,  sat  un¬ 
disturbed  in  a  region  elevated  above  the  controversies  of 
the  time  ;  which  only  touched  it  at  points  so  exceptional, 
and  comparatively  so  obscure,  as  not  appreciably  to 
qualify  its  majestic  authority.  A  Christianity  without 
Christ  is  no  Christianity  ;  and  a  Christ  not  divine  is  one 
other  than  the  Christ  on  whom  the  souls  of  Christians 
have  habitually  fed.  What  virtue,  what  piety,  have 
existed  outside  of  Christianity,  is  a  question  totally 
distinct.  But  to  hold  that,  since  the  great  controversy 
of  the  early  time  was  wound  up  at  Chalcedon,  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  our  Lord’s  Divinity  (which  draws  after  it  all  that 
Robert  Elsmere  would  excide),  has  generated  the  storms 
of  the  Christian  atmosphere,  would  be  simply  an  historical 
untruth.  How  then  is  the  work  of  peace  to  be  promoted 
by  the  excision  from  our  creed  of  that  central  truth  on 
which  we  are  generally  agreed  ? 

The  onward  movement  of  negation  in  the  present  day 
has  presented  perhaps  no  more  instructive  feature  than 
this,  that  the  Unitarian  persuasion  has,  in  this  country 
at  least,  by  no  means  thriven  upon  it.  It  might  have 
been  thought  that,  in  the  process  of  dilapidation,  here 
would  have  been  a  point  at  which  the  receding  tide  of 
belief  would  have  rested  at  any  rate  for  a  while.  But 
instead  of  this,  we  are  informed  that  the  numbers  of 


104  ‘  ROBERT  elsmere:’  the  battle  of  belief. 

professed  Unitarians  have  increased  less  than  those  of 
other  communions,  and  less  than  the  natural  growth 
of  the  population.  And  we  find  Mrs.  Ward  herself 
describing  the  old  Unitarian  scheme  #  as  one  wholly 
destitute  of  logic  ;  but  in  what  respect  she  improves 
upon  it  I  have  not  yet  perceived. 

In  order  to  invest  any  particular  propagandism  with 
a  show  of  presumptive  title  to  our  acceptance,  its  author 
should  be  able  to  refer  it  to  some  standard  of  appeal 
which  will  show  that  it  has  foundations  otherwise  than 
in  mere  private  judgment  or  active  imagination.  The 
books  of  the  New  Testament  I  understand  to  be,  for 
Mrs.  Ward,  of  no  value  except  for  the  moral  precepts 
they  contain.  Still  less  may  we  invoke  the  authority  of 
the  Old  Testament,  where  the  ethical  picture  is  more 
checquered.  She  finds  no  spell  in  the  great  moral 
miracle  (so  to  phrase  it)  of  the  Psalms ;  nor  in  the 
marvellous  jpropaideia  of  the  J ewish  history,  so  strikingly 
confirmed  by  recent  research •  in  the  Levitical  law,  the 
prophetic  teaching,  the  entire  dispensation  of  temporal 
promise  and  of  religious  worship  and  instruction,  by 
which  the  Hebrew  race  was  kept  in  social  isolation 
through  fifteen  centuries,  as  a  cradle  for  the  Redeemer 
that  was  to  come.  She  is  not  awakened  by  the  Christian 
more  than  by  the  Jewish  history.  No  way  to  her  assent 
is  opened  by  the  great  victory  of  the  world’s  babes  and 
striplings  over  its  philosophers  and  scholars,  and  the 
serried  array  of  emperors,  aristocracies,  and  statesmen, 
with  their  elaborate  apparatus  of  organised  institutions. 
All  this  cogent  mass  of  human  testimony  is  rendered,  I 
admit,  on  behalf  not  of  a  vague  and  arbitrary  severance 


*  iii.  55. 


1  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  105 


of  Christian  morals  from  the  roots  which  have  produced 
them,  but  of  what  we  term  the  Christian  dogma,  that  is 
to  say,  of  belief  in  God  supplemented  and  brought  home 
by  the  great  fact  of  Redemption,  and  of  the  provision 
made  through  the  Church  of  Christ  for  the  perpetual 
conservation  and  application  of  its  living  powers. 

And  it  must  be  observed  that,  in  adducing  this 
evidence  from  consent,  I  make  no  assumption  and  beg 
no  question  as  between  reformed  and  unreformed  Chris¬ 
tianity.  By  any  such  preferential  treatment  of  a  part,  I 
should  weaken  the  authority  and  betray  the  sacred  cause 
of  the  whole.  All  that  can  be  said  or  shown  of  the 
corruptions  that  have  gathered  round  the  central  scheme, 
of  the  failure  rightly  to  divide  the  word  of  truth,  of  the 
sin  and  shame  that  in  a  hundred  forms  have  belied  its 
profession,  affords  only  new  proof  of  the  imperishable 
vitality  that  has  borne  so  much  disease,  of  the  buoyancy 
of  the  ark  on  whose  hull  has  grown  so  much  of  excres¬ 
cence  without  arresting  its  course  through  the  waters. 
And  again,  the  concord  of  Christians  ever  since  the  great 
adjudication  of  the  fifth  century  on  the  central  truth  has 
acquired  an  addition  of  weight  almost  incalculable,  from 
the  fact  that  they  have  differed  so  sharply  upon  many  of 
the  propositions  that  are  grouped  around  it. 

Without  doubt  human  testimony  is  to  be  duly  and 
strictly  sifted,  and  every  defect  in  its  quantity  or  quality 
is  to  be  recorded  in  the  shape  of  a  deduction  from  its 
weight.  But  as  there  is  no  proceeding  more  irreverent, 
so  there  is  none  more  strictly  irrational,  than  its  whole¬ 
sale  depreciation.  Such  depreciation  is  apL  infallible 
note  of  shallow  and  careless  thinking,  for  it  very 
generally  implies  an  exaggerated  and  almost  ludicrous 
estimate  of  the  capacity  and  performances  of  the  present 


106  ‘ROBERT  ELSMERE:’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

generation,  as  compared  with  those  which  have  preceded 
it.  Judges  in  our  own  cause,  pleaders  with  nobody  to 
reply,  we  take  ample  note  of  every  comparative  advantage 
we  possess,  but  forget  to  register  deteriorating  and  dis¬ 
qualifying  influences.  Not  less  commonly  is  our  offence 
avenged  by  our  own  inconsistency.  The  solemn  voice 
of  the  ages,  the  securus  judicat  orbis  t err  arum,  amounts 
simply  to  zero  for  Robert  Elsmere.  Yet  he  can  abso¬ 
lutely  surrender  to  his  own  selected  pope  the  guidance 
of  his  understanding ;  and  when  he  asks  himself,  at  the 
funeral  in  the  third  volume,  whether  the  more  modest,  that 
is,  the  emasculated,  form  of  human  hope  in  the  presence 
of  the  Eternal,  may  not  be  “as  real,  as  sustaining,'’  as 
the  old  one,  his  reply  to  this  great  question  is — •“  Let 
Grey’s  trust  answer  for  me.”  * 

This  great  buttress  of  the  old  religion,  whatever  its 
value,  is  then  withdrawn  from  the  new  one,  which 
starts  like 

“  a  painted  ship 
Upon  a  painted  ocean,” 

accredited  by  a  successful  venture  among  the  London 
artisans,  who  differ  (so  we  are  told)  not  only  from  the 
classes  above  and  beneath  them  in  the  metropolis,  as 
to  their  disposition  to  accept  the  Christian  doctrines,  but 
from  their  own  brethren  in  the  north,  f  It  is  not,  there¬ 
fore,  on  testimony  that  the  Elsmere  gospel  takes  its 
stand.  Does  it,  then,  stand  upon  philosophy,  upon 
inherent  beauty  and  fitness,  as  compared  with  the 
scheme  which  it  dismembers  and  then  professes  to  re¬ 
place?  Again,  be  it  borne  in  mind  that  the  essence 
of  the  proposal  is  to  banish  the  supernatural  idea  and 


*  iii.  284. 


f  iii.  159. 


‘ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  107 

character  of  our  Lord,  but  to  imbibe  and  assimilate 
His  moral  teachings. 

From  my  antiquated  point  of  view,  this  is  simply  to 
bark  the  tree,  and  then,  as  the  death  which  ensues  is 
not  immediate,  to  point  out  with  satisfaction  on  the 
instant  that  it  still  waves  living  branches  in  the  wind. 
We  have  before  us  a  huge  larcenous  appropriation,  by 
the  modern  schemes,  of  goods  which  do  not  belong  to 
them.  They  carry  peacocks’  feathers,  which  adorn  them 
for  a  time,  and  which  they  cannot  reproduce.  Let  us 
endeavour  to  learn  whether  these  broad  assumptions, 
which  flow  out  of  the  historic  testimony  of  the  Christian 
ages,  are  also  prompted  and  sustained  by  the  reason  of 
the  case. 

It  is  sometimes  possible  to  trace  peculiar  and  marked 
types  of  human  character  with  considerable  precision  to 
their  causes.  Take,  for  instance,  the  Spartan  type  of 
character,  in  its  relation  to  the  legislation  attributed 
to  Lycurgus.  Or  take,  again,  the  Jewish  type,  such  as 
it  is  presented  to  us  both  by  the  ancient  and  the  later 
history,  in  its  relation  to  the  Mosaic  law  and  institutions. 
It  would  surely  have  been  a  violent  paradox,  in  either 
of  these  cases,  to  propose  the  abolition  of  the  law,  and 
to  assert  at  the  same  time  that  the  character  would 
continue  to  be  exhibited,  not  only  sporadically  and  for  a 
time,  but  normally  and  in  permanence. 

These  were  restricted,  almost  tribal,  systems.  Chris¬ 
tianity,  though  by  no  means  less  peculiar,  was  diffusive. 
It  both  produced  a  type  of  character  wholly  new  to  the 
Roman  world,  and  it  fundamentally  altered  the  laws 
and  institutions,  the  tone,  temper,  and  tradition  of  that 
world.  For  example,  it  changed  profoundly  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  poor  to  the  rich,  and  the  almost  forgotten 


108  ‘ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

obligations  of  the  rich  to  the  poor.  It  abolished  slavery, 
abolished  human  sacrifice,  abolished  gladiatorial  shows, 
and  a  multitude  of  other  horrors.  It  restored  the 
position  of  woman  in  society.  It  proscribed  polygamy  ; 
and  put  down  divorce,  absolutely  in  the  West,  though 
not  absolutely  in  the  East.  It  made  peace,  instead  of 
war,  the  normal  and  presumed  relation  between  human 
societies.  It  exhibited  life  as  a  discipline  everywhere 
and  in  all  its  parts,  and  changed  essentially  the  place 
and  function  of  suffering  in  human  experience.  Accept¬ 
ing  the  ancient  morality  as  far  as  it  went,  it  not  only 
enlarged  but  transfigured  its  teaching,  by  the  laws  of 
humility  and  of  forgiveness,  and  by  a  law  of  purity  per¬ 
haps  even  more  new  and  strange  than  these.  Let  it  be 
understood  that  I  speak  throughout  not  of  such  older 
religion  as  may  have  subsisted  in  the  lowly  and 
unobserved  places  of  human  life,  but  of  what  stamped 
the  character  of  its  strongholds ;  of  the  elements  which 
made  up  the  main  and  central  currents  of  thought, 
action,  and  influence,  in  those  places,  and  in  those 
classes,  which  drew  the  rest  of  the  world  in  their  train. 
All  this  was  not  the  work  of  a  day,  but  it  was  the  work 
of  powers  and  principles  which  persistently  asserted 
themselves  in  despite  of  controversy,  of  infirmity,  and 
of  corruption  in  every  form  ;  which  reconstituted  in  life 
and  vigour  a  society  found  in  decadence ;  which  by 
degrees  came  to  pervade  the  very  air  we  breathe  ;  and 
which  eventually  have  beyond  all  dispute  made  Christen¬ 
dom  the  dominant  portion,  and  Christianity  the  ruling 
power,  of  the  world.  And  all  this  has  been  done,  not  by 
eclectic  and  arbitrary  fancies,  but  by  the  creed  of  the 
Homoousion,  in  which  the  philosophy  of  modern  times 
sometimes  appears  to  find  a  favourite  theme  of  ridicule. 


£  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  109 


But  it  is  not  less  material  to  observe  that  the  whole 
fabric,  social  as  well  as  personal,  rests  on  the  new  type 
of  individual  character  which  the  Gospel  brought  into 
life  and  action  :  enriched  and  completed  without  doubt 
from  collateral  sources  which  made  part  of  the  “  Evan¬ 
gelical  preparation,’’  but  in  its  central  essence  due 
entirely  to  the  dispensation,  which  had  been  founded 
and  wrought  out  in  the  land  of  J udsea,  and  in  the  history 
of  the  Hebrew  race.  What  right  have  we  to  detach,  or 
to  suppose  we  can  detach,  this  type  of  personal  character 
from  the  causes  out  of  which  as  matter  of  history  it  has 
grown,  and  to  assume  that  without  its  roots  it  will  thrive 
as  well  as  with  them  1 

For  Mrs.  Ward  is  so  firmly  convinced,  and  so 
affectionately  sensible,  of  the  exquisite  excellence  of  the 
Christian  type  that  she  will  permit  no  abatement  from 
it,  though  she  thinks  it  can  be  cast  in  a  mould  which 
is  human  as  well  as,  nay,  better  than,  in  one  which  is 
divine.  Nor  is  she  the  first  person  who,  in  renouncing 
the  Christian  tradition,  has  reserved  her  allegiance  to 
Christian  morals  and  even  sought  to  raise  their  standard. 
We  have,  for  instance,  in  America,  not  a  person  only, 
but  a  society,  which,  while  trampling  on  the  Divinity 
and  Incarnation  of  Christ,  not  only  accepts  His  rule  of 
life,  but  pushes  evangelical  counsels  into  absolute  pre¬ 
cepts,  and  insists  upon  them  as  the  rule  of  life  for  all 
who  seek,  instead  of  abiding  in  the  “  lower  floor  churches,” 
to  be  Christians  indeed.  “The  fundamental  principles 
of  Shakerism  ”  are  “  virgin  purity,  non-resistance,  peace, 
equality  of  inheritance,  and  unspottedness  from  the 
world.”  *  The  evidence  of  travellers  appears  to  show 

*  The  quotation  is  from  a  preface  to  ‘  Shaker  Sermons,’  by  H.  L. 
Eads,  Bishop  of  South  Union,  Kentucky.  Fourth  edition,  1887. 


110  c  ROBERT  ELSMEEE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

that  the  ideal  of  these  projectors  has  to  a  certain  degree 
been  realised ;  nor  can  we  know  for  how  many  years 
an  eccentric  movement  of  this  kind  will  endure  the  test 
of  time  without  palpably  giving  way.  The  power  of 
environment,  and  the  range  of  idiosyncrasy,  suffice  to 
generate,  especially  in  dislocating  times,  all  sorts  of 
abnormal  combinations,  which  subsist,  in  a  large  degree, 
upon  forces  not  their  own,  and  so  impose  themselves, 
with  a  show  of  authority,  upon  the  world. 

Let  us  return  to  the  point.  The  Christian  type  is 
the  product  and  the  property  of  the  Christian  scheme. 
No,  says  the  objector,  the  improvements  which  we 
witness  are  the  offspring  of  civilisation.  It  might  be 
a  sufficient  answer  to  point  out  that  the  civilisation 
before  and  around  us  is  a  Christian  civilisation.  What 
civilisation  could  do  without  Christianity  for  the  greatest 
races  of  mankind,  we  know  already.  Philosophy  and 
art,  creative  genius  and  practical  energy,  had  their  turn 
before  the  Advent ;  and  we  can  register  the  results.  I 
do  not  say  that  the  great  Greek  and  Roman  ages  lost — 
perhaps  even  they  improved — the  ethics  of  meum  and 
tuum,  in  the  interests  of  the  leisured  and  favoured  classes 
of  society,  as  compared  with  what  those  ethics  had  been 
in  archaic  times.  But  they  lost  the  hold  which  some 
earlier  races  within  their  sphere  had  had  of  the  future 
life.  They  degraded,  and  that  immeasurably,  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  woman.  They  effaced  from  the  world  the  law 
of  purity.  They  even  carried  indulgence  to  a  worse 
than  bestial  type ;  and  they  gloried  in  the  achievement.* 
Duty  and  religion,  in  the  governing  classes  and  the 
governing  places,  were  absolutely  torn  asunder ;  and  self- 


*  See,  for  instance,  the  "'E pures  of  Lucian. 


‘ROBERT  ELSMERE:’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  Ill 

will  and  self -worship  were  established  as  the  unquestioned 
rule  of  life.  It  is  yet  more  important  to  observe  that  the 
very  qualities  which  are  commended  in  the  Beatitudes, 
and  elsewhere  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  which 
form  the  base  of  the  character  specifically  Christian, 
were  for  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  mind  the  objects 
of  contempt.  From  the  history  of  all  that  has  lain 
within  the  reach  of  the  great  Mediterranean  basin,  not 
a  tittle  of  encouragement  can  be  drawn  for  the  ideas  of 
those,  who  would  surrender  the  doctrines  of  Christianity 
and  yet  retain  its  moral  and  spiritual  fruits. 

Does  then  that  severance,  unsustained  by  authority 
or  by  experience,  commend  itself  at  any  single  point  by 
an  improved  conformity  with  purely  abstract  principles 
of  philosophy  ?  and  is  the  new  system  better  adapted  to 
the  condition  and  the  needs  of  human  nature,  than  the 
old  'i  Does  it  better  correspond  with  what  an  enlightened 
reason  would  dictate  as  the  best  provision  for  those 
needs  ?  Does  it  mitigate,  or  does  it  enhance,  the 
undoubted  difficulties  of  belief  ?  And  if  the  answer 
must  be  given  in  the  negative  to  both  these  inquiries, 
how  are  we  to  account  for  the  strange  phenomenon 
which  exhibits  to  us  persons  sincerely,  nay  painfully, 
desirous  of  seeing  Divine  government  more  and  more 
accepted  in  the  world,  yet  enthusiastically  busied  in 
cutting  away  the  best  among  the  props,  by  which  that 
o’overnment  has  been  heretofore  sustained  h 

O 

As  regards  the  first  of  these  three  questions,  it  is  to 
be  observed  that,  while  the  older  religions  made  free 
use  of  prodigy  and  portent,  they  employed  these  instru¬ 
ments  for  political  rather  than  moral  purposes ;  and  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  the  sum  total  of  such  action 
tended  to  raise  the  standard  of  life  and  thought.  The 


112  4  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’ 


THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 


general  upshot  was  that  the  individual  soul  felt  itself 
very  far  from  God.  Our  bedimmed  eye  could  not 
perceive  His  purity ;  and  our  puny  reach  could  not  find 
touch  of  His  vastness.  By  the  scheme  of  Redemption, 
this  sense  of  distance  was  removed.  The  divine  per¬ 
fections  were  reflected  through  the  medium  of  a  perfect 
humanity,  and  were  thus  made  near,  familiar,  and  liable 
to  love.  The  great  all-pervading  law  of  human  sympathy 
became  directly  available  for  religion,  and  in  linking  us 
to  the  Divine  Humanity,  linked  us  by  the  same  act  to 
God.  And  this  not  for  rare  and  exceptional  souls  alone, 
but  for  the  common  order  of  mankind.  The  direct 
contact,  the  interior  personal  communion  of  the  individual 
with  God  was  re-established  :  for  human  faculties,  in 
their  normal  action,  could  now  appreciate,  and  approach 
to,  what  had  previously  been  inappreciable  and  un¬ 
approachable.  Surely  the  system  I  have  thus  rudely 
exhibited  was  ideally  a  great  philosophy,  as  well  as 
practically  an  immeasurable  boon.  To  strike  out  the 
redemptive  clauses  from  the  scheme  is  to  erase  the  very 
feature  by  which  it  essentially  differed  from  all  other 
schemes ;  and  to  substitute  a  didactic  exhibition  of 
superior  morality,  with  the  rays  of  an  example  in  the 
preterite  tense,  set  by  a  dead  man  in  Judaea,  for  that 
scheme  of  living  forces,  by  which  the  powers  of  a  living 
Saviour’s  humanity  are  daily  and  hourly  given  to  man, 
under  a  charter  which  expires  only  with  the  world 
itself.  Is  it  possible  here  to  discern,  either  from  an  ideal 
or  from  a  practical  point  of  view,  anything  but  depletion 
and  impoverishment,  and  the  substitution  of  a  spectral 
for  a  living  form  ? 

If  we  proceed  to  the  second  question,  the  spectacle, 
as  it  presents  itself  to  me,  is  stranger  still.  Although 


1  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  113 

\vc  know  that  James  Mill,  arrested  by  the  strong  hand 
of  Bishop  Butler,  halted  rather  than  rested  for  a  while 
in  theism  on  his  progress  towards  general  negation,  yet 
his  case  does  not  supply,  nor  can  we  draw  from  other 
sources,  any  reason  to  regard  such  a  position  as  one 
which  can  be  largely  and  permanently  held  against  that 
relentless  force  of  logic,  which  is  ever  silently  at  work 
to  assert  and  to  avenge  itself.  The  theist  is  confronted, 
with  no  breakwater  between,  by  the  awful  problem  of 
moral  evil,  by  the  mystery  of  pain,  by  the  apparent 
anomalies  of  waste  and  of  caprice  on  the  face  of  creation  ; 
and  not  least  of  all  by  the  fact  that,  while  the  moral 
government  of  the  world  is  founded  on  the  free  agency 
of  man,  there  are  in  multitudes  of  cases  environing 
circumstances  independent  of  his  will  which  seem  to 
deprive  that  agency,  called  free,  of  any  operative  power 
adequate  to  contend  against  them.  In  this  bewildered 
state  of  things,  in  this  great  enigma  of  the  world,  “  Who 
is  this  that  cometh  from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments 
from  Bozrah?  .  .  .  Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine 
apparel,  and  thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the 
winefat  1  ”  *  There  has  come  upon  the  scene  the  figure 
of  a  Redeemer,  human  and  divine.  Let  it  be  granted 
that  the  Incarnation  is  a  marvel  wholly  beyond  our 
reach,  and  that  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection  to-day 
gives  serious  trouble  to  some  fastidious  intellects.  But 
the  difficulties  of  a  baffled  understanding,  lying  every¬ 
where  around  us  in  daily  experience,  are  to  be  expected 
from  its  limitations ;  not  so  the  shocks  encountered  by 
the  moral  sense.  Even  if  the  Christian  scheme  slightly 
lengthened  the  immeasurable  catalogue  of  the  first,  this 


l. 


*  Isa.  lxiii,  1,  2. 


I 


114  ‘ROBERT  ELSMERE.*’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 

is  dust  in  the  balance  compared  with  the  relief  it 
furnishes  to  the  second  ;  in  supplying  the  most  powerful 
remedial  agency  ever  known,  in  teaching  how  pain  may 
be  made  a  helper,  and  evil  transmuted  into  good  ;  and 
in  opening  clearly  the  vision  of  another  world,  in  which 
we  are  taught  to  look  for  yet  larger  counsels  of  the 
Almighty  wisdom,  To  take  away,  then,  the  agency  so 
beneficent,  which  has  so  softened  and  reduced  the  moral 
problems  that  lie  thickly  spread  around  us,  and  to  leave 
us  face  to  face  with  them  in  all  their  original  rigour,  is 
to  enhance  and  not  to  mitigate  the  difficulties  of  belief. 

Lastly,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  those  who 
prefer  the  Pagan  ideal,  or  who  cannot  lay  hold  on  the 
future  world,  or  who  labour  under  still  greater  dis¬ 
advantages,  should  put  aside  as  a  whole  the  gospel  of 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  But  Mrs.  Ward  is  none  of 
these ;  and  it  is  far  harder  to  comprehend  the  mental 
attitude,  or  the  mental  consistency  at  least,  of  those  who 
like  her  desire  to  retain  what  was  manifested,  but  to 
thrust  aside  the  manifesting  Person,  and  all  that  His 
living  personality  entails  :  or,  if  I  may  borrow  an 
Aristotelian  figure,  to  keep  the  accidents  and  discard 
the  substance.  I  cannot  pretend  to  offer  a  solution  of 
this  hard  riddle.  But  there  is  one  feature  which  almost 
uniformly  marks  writers  whose  mind  as  in  this  case  is 
of  a  religious  tone,  or  who  do  not  absolutely  exclude 
religion,  while  they  reject  the  Christian  dogma  and  the 
authority  of  Scripture.  They  appear  to  have  a  very 
low  estimate  both  of  the  quantity  and  the  quality  of 
sin :  of  its  amount,  spread  like  a  deluge  over  the  world, 
and  of  the  subtlety,  intensity,  and  virulence  of  its 
nature.  I  mean  a  low  estimate  as  compared  with  the 
mournful  denunciations  of  the  sacred  writings,  or  with 


'ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OP  BELIEF.  115 

the  language  especially  of  the  later  Christian  Con¬ 
fessions.  Now  let  it  be  granted  that,  in  interpreting 
those  Confessions,  we  do  not  sufficiently  allow  for  the 
enormous  differences  among  human  beings — differences 
both  of  original  disposition,  and  of  ripened  character. 
We  do  not  sufficiently  take  account  of  the  fact  that, 
while  disturbance  and  degradation  have  so  heavily 
affected  the  mass,  there  are  a  happy  few  on  whom 
nature’s  degeneracy  has  but  lightly  laid  its  hand.  In 
the  biography  of  the  late  Dr.  Marsh  we  have  an  illus¬ 
tration  apt  for  my  purpose.  His  family  was  straitly 
Evangelical.  He  underwent  what  he  deemed  to  be 
conversion.  A  like-minded  friend  congratulated  his 
mother  on  the  work  of  Divine  grace  in  her  son.  But, 
in  the  concrete,  she  mildly  resented  the  remark,  and 
replied  that  in  truth  “  Divine  grace  would  find  very 
little  to  do  in  her  son  William.” 

In  the  novel  of  'The  Unclassed’  by  the  author  of 
‘  Thyrza,’  which  like  '  Robert  Elsmere  ’  is  of  the  didactic 
and  speculative  class,  the  leading  man-character,  when 
detailing  his  mental  history,  says  that  "  sin  ”  has  never 
been  for  him  a  word  of  weighty  import.  So  ingenuous 
a  confession  is  not  common.  I  remember  but  one 
exception  to  the  rule  that  the  negative  writers  of  our 
own  day  have  formed,  or  at  least  have  exhibited,  a  very 
feeble  estimate  of  the  enormous  weight  of  sin,  as  a  factor 
in  the  condition  of  man  and  of  the  world.  That  excep¬ 
tion  is  Amiel.  Mrs.  Ward  has  prefixed  to  her  translation 
of  his  remarkable  and  touching  work  an  Introduction 
from  which  I  make  the  following  extract  : — 

“  His  Calvinistic  training  lingers  long  in  liim ;  and  what  detaches 
him  from  the  Hegelian  school,  with  which  he  has  much  in  com¬ 
mon,  is  his  own  stronger  sense  of  personal  need,  his  preoccupation 


THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF. 


116  ‘  ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’ 

with  the  idea  of  sin.  He  speaks  (says  M.  Kenan  contemptuously) 
of  sin,  of  salvation,  of  redemption  and  conversion,  as  if  these 
things  were  realities.  Ho  asks  me,  ‘What  does  M.  Renan  make 
of  sin  ?  ’  ‘  Eh  bien,  je  crois  quo  je  le  supprime.’  ” 

The  closing  exjmession  is  a  happy  one  :  sin  is  for  the 
most  part  suppressed. 

We  are  bound  to  believe,  and  I  for  one  do  believe, 
that  in  many  cases  the  reason  why  the  doctrines  of 
grace,  so  profoundly  embedded  in  the  Gospel,  are  dis¬ 
pensed  with  by  the  negative  writers  of  the  day,  is  in 
many  cases  because  they  have  not  fully  had  to  feel  the 
need  of  them  :  because  they  have  not  travelled  with 
St.  Paul  through  the  dark  valley  of  agonising  conflict, 
or  with  Dante  along  the  circles  downward  and  the  hill 
upward ;  because,  having  to  bear  a  smaller  share  than 
others  of  the  common  curse  and  burden,  they  stagger 
and  falter  less  beneath  its  weight. 

But  ought  they  not  to  know  that  they  are  physicians, 
who  have  not  learned  the  principal  peril  of  the  patient’s 
case,  and  whose  prescription  accordingly  omits  the  main 
requisite  for  a  cure?  For  surely  in  this  matter  there 
should  be  no  mistake.  As  the  entire  Levitical  institu¬ 
tions  seem  to  have  been  constructed  to  impress  upon 
the  Hebrew  mind  a  deep  and  definite  idea  of  sin,  we 
find  in  the  Hew  Testament  that  that  portion  of  our 
Lord’s  work  was  so  to  speak  ready-made.  But  He 
placed  it  at  the  foundation  of  His  great  design  for  the 
future.  “  When  the  Comforter  is  come,  He  will  reprove 
the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment.”  * 
Mrs.  Ward  seeks,  and  even  with  enthusiasm,  to  “  make 
for  righteousness  ;  ”  but  the  three  terms  compose  an 


*  John  xYu  8 


‘ROBERT  ELSMERE  :  ’  THE  BATTLE  OF  BELIEF.  117 


organic  whole,  and  if  a  part  be  torn  away  the  residue 
will  bleed  to  death.  For  the  present,  however,  we  have 
only  to  rest  in  the  real  though  but  partial  consolation 
that,  if  the  ancient  and  continuous  creed  of  Christendom 
has  slipped  away  from  its  place  in  Mrs.  Ward’s  brilliant 
and  subtle  understanding,  it  has  nevertheless  by  no 
means  lost  a  true,  if  unacknowledged,  hold  upon  the 
inner  sanctuary  of  her  heart. 


IV. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY.* 

1888. 

As  a  listener,  from  across  the  broad  Atlantic,  to  the 
clash  of  arms  in  the  combat  between  Colonel  Ingersoll 
and  Dr.  Field  on  the  most  momentous  of  all  subjects,  I 
have  not  the  personal  knowledge  which  assisted  these 
doughty  champions  in  making  reciprocal  acknowledg¬ 
ments,  as  broad  as  could  be  desired,  with  reference  to 
personal  character  and  motive.  Such  acknowledgments 
are  of  high  value  in  keeping  the  issue  clear,  if  not 
always  of  all  adventitious,  yet  of  all  venomous  matter. 


*  [A  controversy  on  Christianity  has  now  been  carried  on  for  some 
months  in  the  pages  of  The  North  American  Review  between  Dr.  Field 
and  Colonel  Ingersoll,  the  most  eloquent  representative  of  the  school 
of  unbelief  (in  the  United  States).  In  the  course  of  the  discussion  Mr. 
Gladstone  contributed  the  following  paper,  which,  if  we  are  to  judge 
by  the  circulation  of  the  number  of  the  Review  in  which  it  appears, 
has  excited  very  considerable  interest  in  America.  We  believe  that 
some  sixty-three  editions  have  been  published.  By  the  kind  permission 
of  the  distinguished  author,  we  are  enabled  to  present  it  to  our 
readers.  If  it  be  possible  for  party  feeling  to  be  suppressed  for  a  time, 
all  Christian  men  must  rejoice  that  an  illustrious  statesman  should 
have  found  time,  amid  the  varied  and  exciting  engagements  of  his 
active  and  honoured  old  age,  to  produce  this  able  exposition  and 
defence  of  his  faith  in  the  gospel.  Colonel  Ingersoll’s  reply  has  been 
published  in  this  country  in  pamphlet  form. — Editor  of  The  Congre¬ 
gational  Review .] 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY.  119 

Destitute  as  I  am  of  the  experience  on  which  to  found 
them  as  original  testimonies,  still,  in  attempting 
partially  to  criticise  the  remarkable  Reply  of  Colonel 
Ingersoll,  I  can  both  accept  in  good  faith  what  has  been 
said  by  Dr.  Field,  and  add  that  it  seems  to  me  consonant 
with  the  strain  of  the  pages  I  have  set  before  me. 
Having  said  this,  I  shall  allow  myself  the  utmost  free¬ 
dom  in  remarks,  which  will  be  addressed  exclusively  to 
the  matter,  not  the  man. 

Let  me  begin  by  making  several  acknowledgments  of 
another  kind,  but  which  I  feel  to  be  serious.  The 
Christian  Church  has  lived  long  enough  in  external 
triumph  and  prosperity  to  expose  those  of  whom  it  is 
composed  to  all  such  perils  of  error  and  misfeasance,  as 
triumph  and  prosperity  bring  with  them.  Belief  in 
Divine  guidance  is  not  of  necessity  belief  that  such 
guidance  will  never  be  frustrated  by  the  laxity,  the 
infirmity,  the  perversity  of  man,  alike  in  the  domain  of 
action  and  in  the  domain  of  thought.  Believers  in  the 
perpetuity  of  the  life  of  the  Church  are  not  tied  to 
believing  in  the  perpetual  health  of  the  Church.  Even 
the  great  Latin  Communion,  and  that  Communion  even 
since  the  Council  of  the  Vatican  in  1870,  theoretically 
admits,  or  does  not  exclude,  the  possibility  of  a  wide 
range  of  local  and  partial  error  in  opinion  as  well  as 
conduct.  Elsewhere  the  admission  would  be  yet  more 
unequivocal.  Of  such  errors  in  tenet,  or  in  temper  and 
feeling  more  or  less  hardened  into  tenet,  there  has  been 
a  crop  alike  abundant  and  multifarious,  Each  Christian 
party  is  sufficiently  apt  to  recognize  this  fact  with 
regard  to  every  other  Christian  party  ;  and  the  more 
impartial  and  reflective  minds  are  aware  that  no  party 
is  exempt  from  mischiefs,  which  lie  at  the  root  of  the 


120 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


human  constitution  in  its  warped,  impaired,  and  dis¬ 
located  condition.  Naturally  enough,  these  deformities 
help  to  indispose  men  towards  belief ;  and  when  this 
indisposition  has  been  developed  into  a  system  of 
negative  warfare,  all  the  faults  of  all  the  Christian 
bodies,  and  sub-divisions  of  bodies,  are,  as  it  was  natural 
to  expect  they  would  be,  carefully  raked  together,  and 
become  part  and  parcel  of  the  indictment  against  the 
Divine  scheme  of  redemption.  I  notice  these  things  in 
the  mass,  without  particularity,  which  might  be  invidious, 
for  two  important  purposes.  First,  that  we  all,  who 
hold  by  the  gospel  and  the  Christian  Church,  may  learn 
humility  and  modesty,  as  well  as  charity  and  indulgence, 
in  the  treatment  of  opponents,  from  our  consciousness 
that  we  all,  alike  by  our  exaggerations  and  our  short¬ 
comings  in  belief,  no  less  than  by  faults  of  conduct, 
have  contributed  to  bring  about  this  condition  of 
fashionable  hostility  to  religious  faith  :  and,  secondly, 
that  we  may  resolutely  decline  to  be  held  bound  to 
tenets,  or  to  consequences  of  tenets,  which  represent  not 
the  great  Christendom  of  the  past  and  present,  but  only 
some  hole  and  corner  of  its  vast  organization  ;  and  not 
the  heavenly  treasure,  but  the  rust  or  the  canker  to 
which  that  treasure  has  been  exposed  through  the 
incidents  of  its  custody  in  earthen  vessels. 

I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  read  a  composition  in 
which  the  merely  local  colouring  of  particular,  and  even 
very  limited  sections  of  Christianity,  was  more  systemati¬ 
cally  used  as  if  it  had  been  available  and  legitimate 
argument  against  the  whole,  than  in  the  Reply  before 
us.  Colonel  Ingersoll  writes  with  a  rare  and  enviable 
brilliancy,  but  also  with  an  impetus  which  he  seems 
enable  to  control.  Denunciation,  sarcasm,  and  invective, 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


121 


may  in  consequence  be  said  to  constitute  the  staple  of 
his  work ;  and,  if  argument,  or  some  favourable  admis¬ 
sion  here  and  there,  peeps  out  for  a  moment,  the  writer 
soon  leaves  the  dry  and  barren  heights  of  careful  thought 
for  his  favourite  and  more  luxurious  galloping- grounds 
beneath.  Thus,  when  the  Reply  has  consecrated  a  line  * 
to  the  pleasing  contemplation  of  his  opponent  as  “  manly, 
candid,  and  generous,”  it  immediately  devotes  more  than 
twelve  to  a  declamatory  denunciation  of  a  practice  (as  if 
it  were  his)  altogether  contrary  to  generosity  and  to 
candour,  and  reproaches  those  who  expect  f  “  to  receive 
as  alms  an  eternity  of  joy.”  I  take  this  as  a  specimen 
of  the  mode  of  statement  which  permeates  the  whole 
Reply.  It  is  not  the  statement  of  an  untruth.  The 
Christian  receives  as  alms  all  whatsoever  he  receives  at 
all.  Qui  salvandos  salvas  gratis  is  his  song  of  thankful 
praise.  But  it  is  the  statement  of  one-half  of  a  truth, 
which  lives  only  in  its  entirety,  and  of  which  the  Reply 
gives  us  only  a  mangled  and  bleeding  frustum.  For  the 
gospel  teaches  that  the  faith  which  saves  is  a  living  and 
energizing  faith,  and  that  the  most  precious  part  of  the 
alms  which  we  receive  lies  in  an  ethical  and  spiritual 
process,  which  partly  qualifies  for,  but  also  and  emphati¬ 
cally  composes,  this  conferred  eternity  of  joy.  Restore 
this  ethical  element  to  the  doctrine  from  which  the 
Reply  has  rudely  displaced  it,  and  the  whole  force  of  the 
assault  is  gone,  for  there  is  now  a  total  absence  of  point 
in  the  accusation;  it  comes  only  to  this,  that  “  mercy 
and  judgment  are  met  together,”  and  that  “  righteousness 
and  peace  have  kissed  each  other.”  J 

Perhaps,  as  we  proceed,  there  will  be  supplied  ampler 


*  N.  A.  R.}  No.  372,  p.  473, 


f  Ibid, 


f  Ps,  lxxxv.  10, 


122 


TNGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


means  of  judging  whether  I  am  warranted  in  saying  that 
the  instance  I  have  here  given  is  a  normal  instance  of  a 
practice  so  largely  followed  as  to  divest  the  Reply 
entirely  of  that  calmness  and  sobriety  of  movement 
which  are  essential  to  the  just  exercise  of  the  reasoning- 
power  in  subject  matter  not  only  grave,  but  solemn. 
Pascal  has  supplied  us,  in  the  ‘  Provincial  Letters,’ 
with  an  unique  example  of  easy,  brilliant,  and  fascinating- 
treatment,  on  sarcastic  lines,  of  a  theme  both  profound 
and  complex.  But  where  shall  we  find  another  Pascal  ? 
And,  if  we  had  found  him,  he  would  be  entitled  to  point 
out  to  us  that  the  famous  work  was  not  less  close  and 
logical  than  it  was  witty.  In  this  case,  all  attempt  at 
continuous  argument  appears  to  be  deliberately  abjured, 
not  only  as  to  pages,  but,  as  may  almost  be  said,  even  as 
to  lines.  The  paper,  noteworthy  as  it  is,  leaves  on  my 
mind  the  impression  of  a  battle-field  where  every  man 
strikes  at  every  man,  and  all  is  noise,  hurry,  and  con¬ 
fusion.  Better  surely  had  it  been,  and  worthier  of  the 
great  weight  and  elevation  of  the  subject,  if  the 
controversy  had  been  waged  after  the  pattern  of  those 
engagements  where  a  chosen  champion  on  either  side,  in 
a  space  carefully  limited  and  reserved,  does  battle  on 
behalf  of  each  silent  and  expectant  host.  The  pro¬ 
miscuous  crowds  represent  all  the  lower  elements  which 
enter  into  human  conflicts  :  the  chosen  champions,  and 
the  order  of  their  proceeding,  signify  the  dominion  of 
reason  over  force,  and  its  just  place  as  the  sovereign 
arbiter  of  the  great  questions  that  involve  the  main 
destiny  of  man. 

I  will  give  another  instance  of  the  tumultuous 
method  in  which  the  Reply  conducts,  not,  indeed,  its 
argument,  but  its  case.  Pi\  Rield  liad  exhibited  an 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


123 


example  of  what  he  thought  superstition,  and  had 
drawn  a  distinction  between  superstition  and  religion. 
But  to  the  author  of  the  Reply  all  religion  is  super¬ 
stition,  and,  accordingly,  he  writes  as  follows 

“  You  are  shocked  at  the  Hindoo  mother,  when  she  gives  her 
child  to  death  at  the  supposed  command  of  her  God.  What  do 
you  think  of  Abraham?  of  Jephthah  ?  What  is  your  opinion  of 
Jehovah  Himself?”  * 

Taking  these  three  appeals  in  the  reverse  order  to 
that  in  which  they  are  written,  I  will  briefly  ask,  as  to 
the  closing  challenge,  “  What  do  you  think  of  Jehovah 
Himself  ?  ”  whether  this  is  the  tone  in  which  con¬ 
troversy  ought  to  be  carried  on  ?  Not  only  is  the  name 
,  of  Jehovah  encircled  in  the  heart  of  every  believer  with 
the  profoundest  reverence  and  love,  but  the  Christian 
religion  teaches,  through  the  Incarnation,  a  doctrine  of 
personal  union  with  God  so  lofty  that  it  can  only  be 
approached  in  a  deep,  reverential  calm.  I  do  not  deny 
that  a  person  who  deems  a  given  religion  to  be  wicked 
may  be  led  onward  by  logical  consistency  to  impugn  in 
strong  terms  the  character  of  the  Author  and  Object 
of  that  religion.  But  he  is  surely  bound  by  the  laws  of 
social  morality  and  decency  to  consider  well  the  terms 
and  the  manner  of  his  indictment.  If  he  founds  it 
upon  allegations  of  fact,  these  allegations  should  be 
carefully  stated,  so  as  to  give  his  antagonists  reasonable 
evidence  that  it  is  truth  and  not  temper  which  wrings 
from  him  a  sentence  of  condemnation,  delivered  in 
sobriety  and  sadness,  and  not  without  a  due  commisera¬ 
tion  for  those,  whom  he  is  attempting  to  undeceive,  who 
think  he  is  himself  both  deceived  and  a  deceiver,  but 

*  Page  475. 


124 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


who  surely  are  entitled,  while  this  question  is  in  process 
of  decision,  to  require  that  He  whom  they  adore  should 
at  least  be  treated  with  those  decent  reserves,  which 
are  deemed  essential  when  a  human  being,  say  a  parent, 
wife,  or  sister,  is  in  question.  But  here  a  contemptuous 
reference  to  Jehovah  follows,  not  upon  a  careful  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  cases  of  Abraham  and  of  Jephthah,  but 
upon  a  mere  summary  citation  of  them  to  surrender 
themselves,  so  to  speak,  as  culprits ;  that  is  to  say,  a 
summons  to  accept  at  once,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Beply,  the  view  which  the  writer  is  pleased  to  take  of 
those  cases.  It  is  true  that  he  assures  us,  in  another 
part  of  his  paper,  that  he  has  read  the  Scriptures  with 
care  ;  and  I  feel  bound  to  accept  this  assurance,  but  at 
the  same  time  to  add  that  if  it  had  not  been  given  I 
should,  for  one,  not  have  made  the  discovery,  but  might 
have  supposed  that  the  author  had  galloped,  not  through, 
but  about,  the  sacred  Volume,  much  as  a  man  lightly 
glances  over  the  pages  of  an  ordinary  newspaper  or 
novel. 

Although  there  is  no  argument  as  to  Abraham  or 
Jephthah  expressed  upon  the  surface,  we  must  assume 
that  one  is  intended,  and  it  seems  to  be  of  the  following- 
kind  :  “You  are  not  entitled  to  reprove  the  Hindoo 
mother  who  cast  her  child  under  the  wheels  of  the  car 
of  J uggernaut ;  for  you  approve  of  the  conduct  of 
Jephthah,  who  (probably)  sacrificed  his  daughter  in 
fulfilment  of  a  vow  *  that  he  would  make  a  burnt 
offering  of  whatsoever,  on  his  safe  return,  he  should 
meet  coming  forth  from  the  doors  of  his  dwelling.” 
How  the  whole  force  of  this  rejoinder  depends  upon  our 


*  Judg.  xi.  31. 


1NGERS0LL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


125 


supposed  obligation  as  believers  to  approve  the  conduct 
of  Jephthah.  It  is,  therefore,  a  very  serious  question 
whether  we  are  or  are  not  so  obliged.  But  this  question 
the  Beply  does  not  condescend  either  to  argue,  or  even 
to  state.  It  jumps  to  an  extreme  conclusion  without 
the  decency  of  any  intermediate  steps.  Are  not  such 
methods  of  proceeding  more  suited  to  placards  at  an 
election,  than  to  disquisitions  on  these  most  solemn 
subjects  ? 

I  am  aware  of  no  reason  why  any  believer  in  Chris¬ 
tianity  should  not  be  free  to  canvass,  regret,  condemn 
the  act  of  Jephthah.  So  far  as  the  narration  which 
details  it  is  concerned,  there  is  not  a  word  of  sanction 
given  to  it  more  than  to  the  falsehood  of  Abraham  in 
Egypt,  or  of  Jacob  and  Rebecca  in  the  matter  of  the 
hunting  ;  *  or  to  the  dissembling  of  St.  Peter  in  the 
case  of  the  Judaizing  converts. j*  I  am  aware  of  no 
colour  of  approval  given  to  it  elsewhere.  But  possibly 
the  author  of  the  Reply  may  have  thought  he  found 
such  an  approval  in  the  famous  eleventh  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where  the  apostle,  handling  his 
subject  with  a  discernment  and  care  very  different  from 
those  of  the  Reply,  writes  thus  : — 

“And  what  shall  I  say  more?  For  the  time  would  fail  me  to 
tell  of  Gideon,  and  of  Barak,  and  of  Samson,  and  of  Jephthah  :  of 
David  also,  and  Samuel,  and  of  the  prophets.”  % 

Jephthah,  then,  is  distinctly  held  up  to  us  by  a 
canonical  writer  as  an  object  of  praise.  But  of  praise 
on  what  account  1  Why  should  the  Reply  assume  that 


*  Gen,  xx,  1-18,  and  Gen.  xxiii. 

X  Heb,  xi,  32. 


f  Gal.  ii.  11. 


126 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


it  is  on  account  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  child  ?  The  writer 
of  the  Reply  has  given  us  no  reason,  and  no  rag  of  a 
reason,  in  support  of  such  a  proposition.  But  this  was 
the  very  thing  he  was  bound  by  every  consideration  to 
prove,  upon  making  his  indictment  against  the  Almighty. 
In  my  opinion,  he  could  have  one  reason  only  for  not 
giving  a  reason,  and  that  was  that  no  reason  could  be 
found. 

The  matter,  however,  is  so  full  of  interest,  as  illus¬ 
trating  both  the  method  of  the  Reply  and  that  of  the 
Apostolic  writer,  that  I  shall  enter  farther  into  it,  and 
draw  attention  to  the  very  remarkable  structure  of  this 
noble  chapter,  which  is  to  Faith  what  the  Thirteenth  of 
Cor.  I.  is  to  Charity.  From  the  first  to  the  thirty-first 
verse,  it  commemorates  the  achievements  of  faith  in  ten 
persons :  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Sarah,  Isaac, 
Jacob,  Joseph,  Moses  (in  greater  detail  than  any  one 
else),  and  finally  Rahab,  in  whom,  I  observe  in  passing, 
it  will  hardly  be  pretended  that  she  appears  in  this  list 
on  account  of  the  profession  she  had  pursued.  Then 
comes  the  rapid  recital  (ver.  31),  without  any  speci¬ 
fication  of  particulars  whatever,  of  these  four  names  : 
Gideon,  Barak,  Samson,  Jephthah.  Next  follows  a  kind 
of  recommencement,  indicated  by  the  word  also  ;  and  the 
glorious  acts  and  sufferings  of  the  prophets  are  set  forth 
largely,  with  a  singular  power  and  warmth,  headed  by 
the  names  of  David  and  Samuel,  the  rest  of  the  sacred 
band  being  mentioned  only  in  the  mass. 

Now,  it  is  surely  very  remarkable  that,  in  the  whole 
of  this  recital,  the  apostle,  whose  “  feet  were  shod  with 
the  preparation  of  the  gospel  of  peace,”  seems  with  a 
tender  instinct  to  avoid  anything  like  stress  on  the  exploits 
of  warriors.  Of  the  twelve  persons  having  a  share  in 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


127 


the  detailed  expositions,  David  is  the  only  warrior,  and 
his  character  as  a  man  of  war  is  eclipsed  by  his  greater 
attributes  as  a  prophet,  or  declarer  of  the  Divine 
counsels.  It  is  yet  more  noteworthy  that  Joshua,  who 
had  so  fair  a  fame,  but  who  was  only  a  warrior,  is  never 
named  in  the  Chapter,  and  wTe  are  simply  told  that  “  by 
faith  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  down,  after  they  had  been 
compassed  about  seven  times.”  *  But  the  series  of  four 
names,  which  are  given  without  any  specification  of 
their  title  to  appear  in  the  list,  are  all  names  of  dis¬ 
tinguished  warriors.  They  had  all  done  great  acts  of 
faith  and  patriotism  against  the  enemies  of  Israel — - 
Gideon  against  the  Midianites,  Barak  against  the  hosts 
of  Syria,  Samson  against  the  Philistines,  and  Jephthah 
against  the  children  of  Ammon.  Their  title  to  appear 
in  the  list  at  all  is  in  their  acts  of  war,  and  the  mode  of 
their  treatment  as  men  of  war  is  in  striking  accordance 
with  the  analogies  of  the  Chapter.  All  of  them,  more¬ 
over,  had  committed  errors.  Gideon  had  again  and 
again  demanded  a  sign,  and  had  made  a  golden  ephocl, 

‘  ‘  which  thing  became  a  snare  unto  Gideon  and  to  his 
house.”  f  Barak  had  refused  to  go  up  against  Jabin 
unless  Deborah  would  join  the  venture.  J  Samson  had 
been  in  dalliance  with  Delilah.  Last  came  Jephthah, 
who  had,  as  we  assume,  sacrificed  his  daughter  in  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  a  rash  vow.  No  one  supposes  that  any  of  the 
others  are  honoured  by  mention  in  the  chapter  on 
account  of  his  sin  or  error  :  why  should  that  supposition 
be  made  in  the  case  of  Jephthah,  at  the  cost  of  all  the 
rules  of  orderly  interpretation  ? 

Having  now  answered  the  challenge  as  to  J ephthah, 


*  Heb.  xi.  30. 


f  Judg.  viii.  27. 


X  Judg.  v.  8. 


128 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


I  proceed  to  the  case  of  Abraham.  It  would  not  be  fair 
to  shrink  from  touching  it  in  its  tenderest  point.  That 
point  is  nowhere  expressly  touched  by  the  commenda¬ 
tions  bestowed  upon  Abraham  in  Scripture.  I  speak 
now  of  the  special  form,  of  the  words  that  are  employed. 
He  is  not  commended  because,  being  a  father,  he  made 
all  the  preparations  antecedent  to  plunging  the  knife 
into  his  son.  He  is  commended  (as  I  read  the  text) 
because,  having  received  a  glorious  promise,  a  promise 
that  his  wife  should  be  a  mother  of  nations,  and  that 
kings  should  be  born  of  her,*  and  that  by  his  seed  the 
blessings  of  redemption  should  be  conveyed  to  man,  and 
it  being  plain  that  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  depended 
solely  upon  the  life  of  Isaac,  he  was,  nevertheless, 
willing  that  the  chain  of  these  promises  should  be 
broken  even  if  it  were  to  be  by  the  extinction  of  that 
life,  because  his  faith  assured  him  that  the  Almighty 
would  find  the  way  to  give  effect  to  His  own  designs,  j* 
The  offering  of  Isaac  is  mentioned  as  a  completed 
offering,  and  the  intended  blood-shedding,  of  which  I 
shall  speak  presently,  is  not  here  brought  into  view. 

The  facts,  however,  which  we  have  before  us,  and 
which  are  treated  in  Scripture  with  caution,  are  grave 
and  startling.  A  father  is  commanded  to  sacrifice  his 
son.  Before  consummation,  the  sacrifice  is  interrupted. 
Yet  the  intention  of  obedience  had  been  formed,  and 
certified  by  a  series  of  acts.  It  may  have  been  qualified 
by  a  reserve  of  hope  that  God  would  interpose  before 
the  final  act,  but  of  this  we  have  no  distinct  statement, 
and  it  can  only  stand  as  an  allowable  conjecture.  It 
may  be  conceded  that  the  narrative  does  not  supply  us 


*  Geu.  xvii.  t>. 


f  Heb.  xi.  17-19. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


129 


with  a  complete  statement  of  particulars.  That  being 
so,  it  behoves  us  to  tread  cautiously  in  approaching  the 
matter.  Thus  much,  however,  I  think,  may  further  be 
said  by  way  of  preliminary  :  the  command  was  addressed 
to  Abraham  under  conditions,  essentially  different  from 
those  which  now  determine  for  us  the  limits  of  moral 
obligation. 

For  the  conditions,  both  socially  and  otherwise,  were 
indeed  very  different.  The  estimate  of  human  life  at 
the  time  was  different.  The  position  of  the  father  in 
the  family  was  different :  its  members  were  regarded  as 
in  some  sense  his  property.  There  is  every  reason  to 
suppose  that,  around  Abraham  in  “  the  land  of  Moriah,” 
the  practice  of  human  sacrifice  as  an  act  of  religion  was 
in  vigour.  [We  cannot  doubt  that  Abraham  shared  that 
general  belief  in  survival  beyond  death,  which  evidently 
prevailed  in  his  time.]  *  But  we  may  look  yet  more 
deeply  into  the  matter.  According  to  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
Adam  and  Eve  were  placed  under  a  law,  not  of  consciously 
perceived  right  and  wrong,  but  of  simple  obedience.  The 
tree,  of  which  alone  they  were  forbidden  to  eat,  was  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  Duty  lay  for  them 
in  following  the  command  of  the  Most  High,  before  and 
until  they,  or  their  descendants,  should  become  capable 
of  appreciating  it  by  an  ethical  standard.  Their  con¬ 
dition  was  greatly  analogous  to  that  of  the  infant,  who 
has  just  reached  the  stage  at  which  he  can  comprehend 
that  he  is  ordered  to  do  this  or  that,  but  not  the  nature 
of  the  thing  so  ordered.  To  the  external  standard  of 
right  and  wrong,  and  to  the  obligation  it  entails  per  se, 
the  child  is  introduced  by  a  process,  which  gradually 

*  Added  1896.— W.  E.  G. 


I. 


K 


130 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


unfolds  together  with  the  development  of  his  nature,  and 
the  opening  out  of  what  we  term  a  moral  sense.  If  we 
pass  at  once  from  the  epoch  of  Paradise  to  the  period  of 
the  prophets,  we  perceive  the  important  progress  that 
has  been  made  in  the  education  of  the  race.  The 
Almighty,  in  His  mediate  intercourse  with  Israel,  deigns 
to  appeal  to  an  independently  conceived  criterion,  as  to 
an  arbiter  between  His  people  and  Himself.  “  Come, 
now,  and  let  us  reason  together,  saith  the  Lord.”  * 
“Yet  ye  say,  The  way  of  the  Lord  is  not  equal.  Hear 
now,  O  house  of  Israel ;  Is  not  My  way  equal  ?  are  not 
your  ways  unequal  ?  ”  f  Between  these  two  epochs  how 
wide  a  space  of  moral  teaching  has  been  traversed  ! 
But  Abraham,  so  far  as  we  may  judge  from  the  pages 
of  Scripture,  belongs  essentially  to  the  Adamic  period, 
far  more  than  to  the  Prophetic.  The  notion  of  right¬ 
eousness  and  sin  was  not  indeed  hidden  from  him : 
transgression  itself  had  opened  that  chapter,  and  it  was 
one  never  to  be  closed  :  but  as  yet  they  lay  wrapped  up, 
so  to  speak,  in  Divine  command  and  prohibition.  And 
what  God  commanded,  it  was  for  Abraham  to  believe 
that  He  Himself  would  adjust  to  the  harmony  of  His 
own  character. 

The  faith  of  Abraham,  with  respect  to  this  supreme 
trial,  appears  to  have  been  centred  in  the  one  point,  that 
he  would  trust  God  to  all  extremities,  and  in  despite  of 
all  appearances.  The  command  received  was  obviously 
inconsistent  with  the  promises  which  had  preceded  it. 
It  was  also  inconsistent  with  the  exact  morality 
acknowledged  in  later  times,  and  perhaps  too  definitely 
reflected  in  our  minds,  by  an  anachronism  easy  to 


*  Isa.  i.  18. 


f  Ezek.  xviii.  25. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


131 


conceive,  on  the  day  of  Abraham.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  as  between  these  two  points  of  view,  that  the 
strain  upon  his  faith  was  felt  mainly,  to  say  the  least, 
in  connection  with  the  first  mentioned.  This  faith  is 
not  wholly  unlike  the  faith  of  Job ;  for  Job  believed,  in 
despite  of  what  was  to  the  eye  of  flesh  an  unrighteous 
government  of  the  world.  If  we  may  still  trust  the 
Authorized  Version,  his  cry  was,  “though  He  slay  me, 
yet  will  I  trust  in  Him.”  *  This  cry  was,  however,  the 
expression  of  one  who  did  not  expect  to  be  slain ;  and 
it  may  be  that  Abraham,  when  he  said,  “  My  son,  God 
will  provide  Himself  a  lamb  for  a  burnt  offering,”  not 
only  believed  explicitly  that  God  would  do  what  was 
right,  but,  moreover,  believed  implicitly  that  a  way  of 
rescue  would  be  found  for  his  son.  I  do  not  say  that 
this  case  is  like  the  case  of  Jephthah,  where  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  difficulty  is  purely  gratuitous.  I  confine 
myself  to  these  propositions.  Though  the  law  of  moral 
action  is  the  same  everywhere  and  always,  it  is  variously 
applicable  to  the  human  being,  as  we  know  from  experi¬ 
ence,  in  the  various  stages  of  his  development ;  and  its 
first  form  is  that  of  simple  obedience  to  a  superior  whom 
there  is  every  ground  to  trust.  And  further,  if  the  few 
straggling  rays  of  our  knowledge  in  a  case  of  this  kind 
rather  exhibit  a  darkness  lying  around  us  than  dispel 
it,  we  do  not  even  know  all  that  was  in  the  mind  of 
Abraham,  and  are  not  in  a  condition  to  pronounce  upon 
it,  and  cannot,  without  departure  from  sound  reason, 
abandon  that  anchorage  by  which  he  probably  held,  that 
the  law  of  Nature  was  safe  in  the  hands  of  the  Author 
of  Nature,  though  the  means  of  the  reconciliation 


*  Job  xiii.  15. 


132 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


between  the  law  and  the  appearances  have  not  been 
fully  placed  within  our  reach. 

But  the  Reply  is  not  entitled  to  so  wide  an  answer  as 
that  which  I  have  given.  In  the  parallel  with  the  case 
of  the  Hindoo  widow,  it  sins  against  first  principles.  An 
established  and  habitual  practice  of  child-slaughter,  in  a 
country  of  an  old  and  learned  civilization,  presents  to  us 
a  case  totally  different  from  the  issue  of  a  command, 
which  was  not  designed  to  be  obeyed,  and  which  belongs 
to  a  period  when  the  years  of  manhood  were  associated 
in  great  part  with  the  character  that  appertains  to 
childhood. 

It  will  already  have  been  seen  that  the  method  of  this 
Reply  is  not  to  argue  seriously  from  point  to  point,  but 
to  set  out  in  masses,  without  the  labour  of  proof,  crowds 
of  imputations,  which  may  overwhelm  an  opponent  like 
balls  from  a  mitrailleuse.  Instead  of  arguing,  it  pelts. 
As  the  charges,  lightly  run  over  in  a  line  or  two,  require 
pages  for  exhibition  and  confutation,  an  exhaustive 
answer  to  the  Reply  within  the  just  limits  of  an  article 
is  on  this  account  out  of  the  question  ;  and  the  only 
proper  course  left  open  seems  to  be,  first  to  exhibit  the 
vicious  method  of  the  writer,  and  then  to  make  a  selec¬ 
tion  of  what  appears  to  be  the  favourite,  or  the  most 
formidable  and  telling,  assertions,  and  to  deal  with  these 
in  the  serious  way  which  the  grave  interests  of  the 
theme,  not  the  manner  of  their  presentation,  may 
deserve. 

It  was  an  observation  of  Aristotle  that  weight  attaches 
to  the  undemonstrated  propositions  of  those  who  are 
able  to  speak  in  any  given  subject  matter  from  experi¬ 
ence.  The  Reply  abounds  in  undemonstrated  proposi¬ 
tions.  They  appear,  however,  to  be  delivered  without 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


133 


any  sense  of  a  necessity  that  either  experience  or 
reasoning  are  required  in  order  to  give  them  a  title  to 
acceptance.  Thus,  for  example,  the  system  of  Mr. 
Darwin  is  hurled  against  Christianity  as  a  dart  which 
cannot  be  but  fatal.  * 

“  His  discoveries,  carried  to  their  legitimate  conclusion,  destroy 
the  creeds  and  sacred  scripture  of  mankind.”  f 

The  wide-sweeping  proposition  is  imposed  upon  us 
with  no  exposition  of  the  how  or  the  why ;  and  the  whole 
controversy  of  belief  one  might  suppose  is  to  be  deter¬ 
mined,  as  if  from  St.  Petersburg,  by  a  series  of  ukases. 
It  is  only  advanced,  indeed,  to  decorate  the  introduction 
of  Darwin’s  name  in  support  of  the  proposition,  which  I 
certainly  should  support  and  not  contest,  that  error  and 
honesty  are  compatible. 

On  what  ground,  then,  and  for  what  reason,  is  the 
system  of  Darwin  fatal  to  Scriptures  and  to  Creeds  ?  I 
do  not  enter  into  the  question  whether  it  has  passed 
from  the  stage  of  working  hypothesis  into  that  of 
demonstration ;  but  I  assume,  for  the  purposes  of  the 
argument,  all  that,  in  this  respect,  the  Reply  can  desire. 

It  is  not  possible  to  discover,  from  the  random  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  Reply,  whether  the  scheme  of  Darwin  is  to 
sweep  away  all  theism,  or  is  to  be  content  with  extin¬ 
guishing  revealed  religion.  If  the  latter  is  meant,  I 
should  reply  that  the  moral  history  of  man,  in  its 
principal  stream,  has  been  distinctly  an  evolution  from 
the  first  until  now ;  and  that  the  succinct  though  grand 

*  Page  475. 

f  See  the  interesting  volume  of  Mr.  Capron  on  ‘The  Antiquity  of 
Man,’  who  upholds  with  great  force  the  account  given  in  Gen.  i. 
in  the  character  of  a  thorough-going  Darwinian. — W.  E.  G.,1896. 


134 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


account  of  the  Creation  in  Genesis  is  singularly  accordant 
with  the  same  idea,  but  is  wider  than  Darwinism,  since 
it  includes  in  the  grand  progression  the  inanimate  world 
as  well  as  the  history  of  living  organisms.  But,  as  this 
could  not  be  shown  without  much  detail,  the  Beply 
reduces  me  to  the  necessity  of  following  its  own  unsatis¬ 
factory  example  in  the  bald  form  of  an  assertion,  that 
there  is  no  colourable  ground  for  assuming  evolution 
and  revelation  to  be  at  variance  with  one  another. 

If,  however,  the  meaning  be  that  theism  is  swept 
away  by  Darwinism,  I  observe  that,  as  before,  we  have 
only  an  unreasoned  dogma  or  dictum  to  deal  with,  and, 
dealing  perforce  with  the  unknown,  we  are  in  danger 
of  striking  at  a  will  of  the  wisp.  Still,  I  venture  on 
remarking  that  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  has  acquired 
both  praise  and  dispraise  which  it  does  not  deserve.  It 
is  lauded,  in  the  sceptical  camp,  because  it  is  supposed 
to  get  rid  of  the  shocking  idea  of  what  are  termed 
sudden  acts  of  creation;  and  it  is  as  unjustly  dispraised, 
on  the  opposing  side,  because  it  is  thought  to  bridge 
over  the  gap  between  man  and  the  inferior  animals,  and 
to  give  emphasis  to  the  relationship  between  them. 
But  long  before  the  day  either  of  Mr.  Darwin  or  his 
grandfather,  Dr.  Erasmus  Darwin,  this  relationship  had 
been  stated,  perhaps  even  more  emphatically  by  one 
whom,  were  it  not  that  I  have  small  title  to  deal  in 
undemonstrated  assertion,  1  should  venture  to  call  the 
most  cautious,  the  most  robust,  and  the  most  compre¬ 
hensive  of  our  philosophers.  Suppose,  says  Bishop 
Butler,*  that  it  were  implied  in  the  natural  immortality 
of  brutes,  that  they  must  arrive  at  great  attainments, 


*  ‘  Analogy,’  part  i.  chap.  i.  sec.  21. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


135 


and  become  (like  us)  rational  and  moral  agents ;  even 
this  would  be  no  difficulty,  since  we  know  not  what 
latent  powers  and  capacities  they  may  be  endowed  with. 
And  if  pride  causes  us  to  deem  it  an  indignity  that  our 
race  should  have  proceeded  by  propagation  from  an 
ascending  scale  of  inferior  organisms,  why  should  it  be 
a  more  repulsive  idea  to  have  sprung  immediately  from 
something  less  than  man  in  brain  and  body,  than  to 
have  been  fashioned  according  to  the  expression  in 
Genesis  (ii.  7)  “  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground  ”  ?  There 
are  halls  and  galleries  of  introduction  in  a  palace,  but 
none  in  a  cottage ;  and  this  arrival  of  the  creative  work 
at  its  climax  through  an  ever-aspiring  preparatory  series, 
rather  than  by  transition  at  a  step  from  the  inanimate 
mould  of  earth,  may  tend  rather  to  magnify  than  to 
lower  the  creation  of  man  on  his  physical  side.  But  if 
belief  has  (as  commonly)  been  premature  in  its  alarms, 
has  non-belief  been  more  reflective  in  its  exulting  antici¬ 
pations,  and  its  paeans  on  the  assumed  disappearance  of 
what  are  strangely  enough  termed  sudden  acts  of  creation 
from  the  sphere  of  our  study  and  contemplation? 

One  striking  effect  of  the  Darwinian  theory  of  descent 
is,  so  far  as  I  understand,  to  reduce  the  breadth  of  all 
intermediate  distinctions  in  the  scale  of  animated  life. 
It  does  not  bring  all  creatures  into  a  single  lineage,  but 
all  diversities  are  to  be  traced  back,  at  some  point  in 
the  scale  and  by  stages  indefinitely  minute,  to  a  common 
ancestry.  All  is  done  by  steps,  nothing  by  strides, 
leaps,  or  bounds  ;  all  from  protoplasm  up  to  Shakespeare, 
and  again,  as  we  may  suppose,  all  from  primal  night  and 
chaos  up  to  protoplasm.  I  do  not  ask,  and  am  incom¬ 
petent  to  judge,  whether  this  is  among  the  things 
proven,  but  I  take  it  so  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  ; 


136 


INGEKSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


and  I  ask,  first,  why,  and  whereby,  does  this  doctrine 
eliminate  the  idea  of  creation  ?  Does  the  new  philosophy 
teach  that,  if  the  passage  from  pure  reptile  to  pure  bird 
is  achieved  by  a  spring  (so  to  speak)  over  a  chasm,  this 
implies  and  requires  creation;  but  that  if  reptile  passes 
into  bird,  and  rudimental  into  finished  bird,  by  a  thou¬ 
sand  slight  and  but  just  discernible  modifications,  each 
one  of  these  is  so  small  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  a 
name  so  lofty,  and  may  be  set  down  to  any  cause  or  no 
cause,  as  we  please  ?  I  should  have  supposed  it  miserably 
unphilosophical  to  treat  the  distinction  between  creative 
and  non-creative  function  as  a  simply  quantitative  dis¬ 
tinction.  As  respects  the  subjective  effect  on  the  human 
mind,  creation  in  small,  when  closely  regarded,  awakens 
reason  to  admiring  wonder,  not  less  than  creation  in 
great ;  and  as  regards  that  function  itself,  to  me  it 
appears  no  less  than  ridiculous  to  hold  that  the  broadly 
outlined  and  large  advances  of  so-called  Mosaism  are 
creation,  but  the  refined  and  stealthy  onward  steps  of 
Darwinism  are  only  manufacture,  and  relegate  the 
question  of  a  cause  into  obscurity,  insignificance,  or 
oblivion. 

But  does  not  reason  really  require  us  to  go  farther,  to 
turn  the  tables  on  the  adversary,  and  to  contend  that 
evolution,  by  how  much  it  binds  more  closely  together 
the  myriad  ranks  of  the  living,  ay,  and  of  all  other 
orders,  by  so  much  the  more  consolidates,  enlarges,  and 
enhances  the  true  argument  of  design,  and  the  entire 
theistic  position  ?  If  orders  are  not  mutually  related,  it 
is  easier  to  conceive  of  them  as  sent  at  haphazard  into 
the  world.  We  may,  indeed,  sufficiently  draw  an  argu¬ 
ment  of  design  from  each  separate  structure,  but  we 
have  no  further  title  to  build  upon  the  position  which 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


13? 


each  of  them  holds  as  towards  any  other.  But  when 
the  connection  between  these  objects  has  been  estab¬ 
lished  as  continuous,  and  so  established  that  the  points 
of  transition  are  almost  as  indiscernible  as  those  of  the 
passage  from  day  to  night,  then,  indeed,  each  preceding- 
stage  is  a  prophecy  of  the  following,  each  succeeding 
one  is  a  memorial  of  the  past,  and,  throughout  the 
immeasurable  series,  every  single  member  of  it  is  a 
witness  to  all  the  rest.  The  Reply  ought  surely  to 
dispose  of  these,  and  probably  many  more  arguments  in 
the  case,  before  assuming  so  absolutely  the  rights  of 
dictatorship,  and  laying  it  down  that  Darwinism,  carried 
to  its  legitimate  conclusion  (and  I  have  nowhere  en¬ 
deavoured  to  cut  short  its  career),  destroys  the  Creeds 
and  Scriptures  of  mankind. 

That  I  may  be  the  more  definite  in  my  challenge,  I 
would,  with  all  respect,  ask  the  author  of  the  Reply  to 
set  about  confuting  the  succinct  and  clear  argument  of 
his  countryman,  Mr.  Fiske,  who,  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  small  work  entitled  £  Man’s  Destiny,’  *  has  given 
what  seems  to  me  an  admissible  and  also  striking  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  leading  Darwinian  idea  in  its  bearings 
on  the  theistic  argument.  To  this  very  partial  treatment 
of  a  great  subject  I  must  at  present  confine  myself  ; 
and  I  proceed  to  another  of  the  notions,  as  confident  as 
they  seem  to  be  crude,  which  the  Reply  has  drawn  into 
its  wide-casting  net  : 

“Why  should  God  demand  a  sacrifice  from  man  ?  Why  should 
the  Infinite  ask  anything  from  the  finite  ?  Should  the  sun  beg  of 
the  glow-worm,  and  should  the  momentary  spark  excite  the  envy 
of  the  source  of  light  ?  ”  f 


*  Macmillan,  London,  1887. 


f  Page  475. 


138 


INGEESOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


This  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which  happy  or  showy 
illustration  is,  in  the  Reply  before  me,  set  to  carry 
with  a  rush  the  position  which  argument  would  have  to 
approach  more  laboriously  and  more  slowly.  The  case 
of  the  glow-worm  with  the  sun  cannot  but  move  a 
reader’s  pity  •  it  seems  so  very  hard.  But  let  us  suppose 
for  a  moment  that  the  glow-worm  was  so  constituted, 
and  so  related  to  the  sun  that  an  interaction  between 
them  was  a  fundamental  condition  of  its  health  and  life ; 
that  the  glow-worm  must,  by  the  law  of  its  nature,  like 
the  moon,  reflect  upon  the  sun,  according  to  its  strength 
and  measure,  the  light  which  it  receives,  and  that  only 
by  a  process  involving  that  reflection  its  own  store  of 
vitality  could  be  upheld  1  It  will  be  said  that  this  is  a 
very  large  petitio  to  impart  into  the  glow-worm’s  case. 
Yes,  but  it  is  the  very petitio  which  is  absolutely  requisite 
in  order  to  make  it  parallel  to  the  case  of  the  Christian. 
The  argument  which  the  Reply  has  to  destroy  is  and 
must  be  the  Christian  argument,  and  not  some  figure  of 
straw,  fabricated  at  will.  It  is  needless,  perhaps,  but 
it  is  refreshing,  to  quote  the  noble  Psalm  *  in  which 
this  assumption  of  the  Reply  is  rebuked.  “  All  the 
beasts  of  the  forest  are  Mine  ;  and  so  are  the  cattle 
upon  a  thousand  hills.  ...  If  I  be  hungry  I  will  not 
tell  thee ;  for  the  whole  world  is  Mine,  and  all  that  is 
therein.  .  .  .  Offer  unto  God  thanksgiving ;  and  pay 
thy  vows  unto  the  Most  High,  and  call  upon  Me  in  the 
time  of  trouble ;  so  will  I  hear  thee,  and  thou  shalt 
praise  Me.”  Let  me  try  my  hand  at  a  counter-illus¬ 
tration.  If  the  Infinite  is  to  make  no  demand  upon  the 
finite,  by  parity  of  reasoning  the  great  and  strong  should 


*  Ps.  1.  10,  12,  14,  15. 


INGEKSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


139 


scarcely  make  them  on  the  weak  and  small.  Why,  then, 
should  the  father  make  demands  of  love,  obedience, 
and  sacrifice  from  his  young  child  ?  Is  there  not  some 
flavour  of  the  sun  and  glow-worm  here  ?  But  every 
man  does  so  make  them,  if  he  is  a  man  of  sense  and 
feeling  ;  and  he  makes  them  for  the  sake  and  in  the 
interest  of  the  son  himself,  whose  nature,  expanding  in 
the  warmth  of  affection  and  pious  care,  requires,  by  an 
inward  law,  to  repay  as  well  as  to  receive.  And  so 
God  asks  of  us,  in  order  that  what  we  give  to  Him  may 
be  far  more  our  own  than  it  ever  was  before  the  giving, 
or  than  it  could  have  been  unless  first  rendered  up  to 
Him,  to  become  a  part  of  what  the  gospel  calls  our 
treasure  in  heaven. 

Although  the  Reply  is  not  careful  to  supply  us  with 
ivltys,  it  does  not  hesitate  to  ask  for  them  : 

“  Why  should  an  infinitely  wise  and  powerful  God  destroy  the 
good  and  preserve  the  vile?  Why  should  He  treat  all  alike  here, 
and  in  another  world  make  an  infinite  difference  ?  Why  should 
your  God  allow  His  worshippers,  His  adorers,  to  be  destroyed  by 
His  enemies  ?  Why  should  He  allow  the  honest,  the  loving,  the 
noble  to  perish  at  the  stake  ?  ”  * 

The  upholders  of  belief  or  of  revelation,  from  Claudian 
down  to  Cardinal  Newman  (see  the  very  remarkable 
passage  of  the  Apologia  pro  vita  sud,  pp.  376-378),  cannot, 
and  do  not,  seek  to  deny  that  the  methods  of  Divine 
government,  as  they  are  exhibited  by  experience,  present 
to  us  many  and  varied  moral  problems,  insoluble  by  our 
understanding.  Their  existence  may  not,  and  should 
not,  be  dissembled.  But  neither  should  they  be  exag¬ 
gerated.  Now  exaggeration  by  mere  suggestion  is  the 


*  Page  479. 


140 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


fault,  the  glaring  fault,  of  these  queries.  One  who  had 
no  knowledge  of  mundane  affairs  beyond  the  conception 
they  insinuate  would  assume  that,  as  a  rule,  evil  has 
the  upper  hand  in  the  management  of  the  world.  Is 
this  the  grave  philosophical  conclusion  of  a  careful 
observer,  or  is  it  a  crude,  hasty,  and  careless  overstate¬ 
ment,  made  in  headlong  eagerness  to  destroy  ? 

It  is  not  difficult  to  conceive  how,  in  times  of  sadness 
and  of  storm,  when  the  suffering  soul  can  discern  no 
light  at  any  point  of  the  horizon,  place  is  found  for  such 
an  idea  of  life.  It  is,  of  course,  opposed  to  the  apostolic 
declaration  that  godliness  hath  the  promise  of  the  life 
that  now  is,*  but  I  am  not  to  expect  such  a  declaration 
to  be  accepted  as  current  coin,  even  of  the  meanest 
value,  by  the  author  of  the  Reply.  Yet  I  will  offer  two 
observations  founded  on  experience  in  support  of  it,  one 
taken  from  a  limited,  another  from  a  larger  and  more 
open  sphere.  John  Wesley,  in  the  full  prime  of  his 
mission,  warned  the  converts  whom  he  was  making 
among  English  labourers  of  a  spiritual  danger  that  lay 
far  ahead.  It  was  that,  becoming  godly,  they  would 
become  careful,  and,  becoming  careful,  they  would 
become  wealthy.  It  was  a  just  and  sober  forecast, 
and  it  represented  with  truth  the  general  rule  of  life, 
although  it  be  a  rule  perplexed  with  exceptions.  But, 
if  this  be  too  narrow  a  sphere  of  observation,  let  us  take 
a  wider  one,  the  widest  of  all.  It  is  comprised  in  the 
brief  statement  that  Christendom  rules  the  world,  and 
rules  it,  perhaps  it  should  be  added,  by  the  possession 
of  a  vast  surplus  of  material  as  well  as  moral  force. 
Therefore  the  assertions  carried  by  implication  in  the 


*  1  Tim.  iv.  8. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


141 


queries  of  the  Reply,  which  are  general,  are  because 
general  untrue,  although  they  might  have  been  true 
within  those  prudent  limitations,  which  the  method  of 
this  Reply  appears  especially  to  eschew. 

Taking,  then,  these  challenges  as  they  ought  to  have 
been  given,  I  admit  that  great  believers,  who  have  been 
also  great  masters  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  are  not 
always  able  to  explain  the  inequalities  of  adjustment 
between  human  beings  and  the  conditions  in  which 
they  have  been  set  down  to  work  out  their  destiny. 
The  climax  of  these  inequalities  is  perhaps  to  be  found 
in  the  fact  that,  whereas  rational  belief,  viewed  at  large, 
founds  the  Providential  government  of  the  world  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  free  agency,  there  are  so  many  cases 
in  which  the  overbearing  mastery  of  circumstance 
appears  to  reduce  that  agency  to  extinction  or  paralysis. 
Now,  in  one  sense,  without  doubt,  these  difficulties  are 
matter  for  our  legitimate  and  necessary  cognizance.  It 
is  a  duty  incumbent  upon  us  respectively,  according  to 
our  means  and  opportunities,  to  decide  for  ourselves, 
by  the  use  of  the  faculty  of  reason  given  us,  the  great 
questions  of  natural  and  revealed  religion.  They  are  to 
be  decided  according  to  the  evidence  ;  and,  if  we  cannot 
trim  the  evidence  into  a  consistent  whole,  then  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  balance  of  the  evidence.  We  are  not  entitled, 
either  for  or  against  belief,  to  set  up  in  this  province 
any  rule  of  investigation,  except  such  as  common-sense 
teaches  us  to  use  in  the  ordinary  conduct  of  life.  As 
in  ordinary  conduct,  so  in  considering  the  basis  of  belief, 
we  are  bound  to  look  at  the  evidence  as  a  whole.  We 
have  no  right  to  demand  demonstrative  proofs,  or  the 
removal  of  all  conflicting  elements,  either  in  the  one 
sphere  or  in  the  other.  What  guides  us  sufficiently  in 


142 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


matters  of  common  practice  has  the  very  same  authority 
to  guide  us  in  matters  of  speculation ;  which  is  more 
properly,  perhaps,  to  be  called  the  practice  of  the  soul. 
If  the  evidence  in  the  aggregate  shows  the  being  of  a 
moral  Governor  of  the  world,  with  the  same  force  as 
would  suffice  to  establish  an  obligation  to  act  in  a  matter 
of  common  conduct,  we  are  bound  in  duty  to  accept  it, 
and  have  no  right  to  demand  as  a  condition  previous 
that  all  occasions  of  doubt  or  question  be  removed  out 
of  the  way.  Our  demands  for  evidence  must  be  limited 
by  the  general  reason  of  the  case.  Does  that  general 
reason  of  the  case  make  it  probable  that  a  finite  being, 
with  a  finite  place  in  a  comprehensive  scheme,  devised 
and  administered  by  a  Being  who  is  infinite,  would  be 
able  either  to  embrace  within  his  view,  or  rightly  to 
appreciate,  all  the  motives  and  the  aims  that  may  have 
been  in  the  mind  of  the  Divine  Disposer  ?  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  a  demand  so  unreasonable  deserves  to  be  met 
with  the  scornful  challenge  of  Dante : 

“  Or  tu  chi  se’,  che  vuoi  sedere  a  scranna 
Per  giudicar  da  lungi  mille  miglia 
Colla  veduta  corta  d’una  spanna  ?  ”  * 

Undoubtedly  a  great  deal  depends  here  upon  the 
question  whether,  and  in  what  degree,  our  knowledge  is 
limited.  And  here  the  Reply  seems  to  be  by  no  means 
in  accord  with  Newton  and  with  Butler.  By  its  con¬ 
tempt  for  authority,  the  Reply  seems  to  cut  off  from  us 
all  knowledge  that  it  is  not  at  first  hand  ;  but  then 
also  it  seems  to  assume  an  original  and  first  hand  know¬ 
ledge  of  all  possible  kinds  of  things.  I  will  take  an 


*  ‘Paradise,’  xix.  79. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


143 


instance,  all  the  easier  to  deal  with  because  it  is  outside 
the  immediate  sphere  of  controversy.  In  one  of  those 
pieces  of  fine  writing  with  which  the  Reply  abounds,  it 
is  determined  obiter  *  by  a  backhanded  stroke  that 
Shakespeare  is  “by  far  the  greatest  of  the  human  race.” 

I  do  not  feel  entitled  to  assert  that  he  is  not ;  but  how 
vast  and  complex  a  question  is  here  determined  for  us 
in  this  airy  manner  !  Has  the  writer  of  the  Reply 
really  weighed  the  force  and  measured  the  sweep  of  his 
own  words  ?  Whether  Shakespeare  has  or  has  not  the 
primacy  of  genius  over  a  very  few  other  names  which 
might  be  placed  in  competition  with  his,  is  a  question 
which  has  not  yet  been  determined  by  the  general  or 
deliberate  judgment  of  lettered  mankind.  But  behind 
it  lies  another  question,  inexpressibly  difficult,  except  for 
the  author  of  the  Reply,  to  solve.  That  question  is,  what 
is  the  relation  of  human  genius  to  human  greatness. 
Is  genius  the  sole  constitutive  element  of  greatness, 
or  with  what  other  elements,  and  in  what  relations 
to  them,  is  it  combined?  Is  every  man  great  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  his  genius  ?  Was  Goldsmith,  or  was  Sheridan, 
or  was  Burns,  or  was  Byron,  or  was  Goethe,  or  was 
Napoleon,  or  was  Alcibiades,  no  smaller,  and  was  John¬ 
son,  or  was  Howard,  or  was  Washington,  or  was  Phocion 
or  Leonidas  no  greater,  than  in  proportion  to  his  genius 
properly  so  called  ?  How  are  we  to  find  a  common 
measure,  again,  for  different  kinds  of  greatness ;  how 
weigh,  for  example,  Dante  against  J ulius  Cjesar  ?  And 
I  am  speaking  of  greatness  properly  so  called,  not  of 
goodness  properly  so  called.  We  might  seem  to  be 
dealing  with  a  writer,  whose  contempt  for  authority  in 


*  N.  A.  R.  p.  491. 


144 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


general  is  fully  balanced,  perhaps  outweighed,  by  his 
respect  for  at  least  one  authority  in  particular. 

The  religions  of  the  world,  again,  have  in  many  cases 
given  to  many  men  material  for  life-long  study.  The 
study  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  to  say  nothing  of 
Christian  life  and  institutions,  has  been  to  many  and 
justly  famous  men  a  study  “never  ending,  still  begin¬ 
ning  ”  ;  not,  like  the  world  of  Alexander,  too  limited  for 
the  powerful  faculty  that  ranged  over  it ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  opening  height  on  height,  and  with  deep 
answering  to  deep,  and  with  increase  of  fruit  ever  pre¬ 
scribing  increase  of  effort.  But  the  Reply  has  sounded 
all  these  depths,  has  found  them  very  shallow,  and  is 
quite  able  to  point  out  *  the  way  in  which  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  might  have  been  a  much  greater  teacher 
than  He  actually  was ;  had  He  said  anything,  for 
instance,  of  the  family  relation,  had  He  spoken  against 
slavery  and  tyranny,  had  He  issued  a  sort  of  code 
Napoleon  embracing  education,  progress,  scientific  truth, 
and  international  law.  This  observation  on  the  family 
relation  seems  to  me  beyond  even  the  usual  measure 
of  extravagance,  when  we  bear  in  mind  that,  according 
to  the  Christian  scheme,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth 
“  was  subject  ”  |  to  a  human  mother  and  a  reputed 
human  father,  and  that  He  taught  (according  to  the 
widest  and,  I  believe,  the  best  opinion)  the  absolute 
indissolubility  of  marriage.  I  might  cite  many  other 
instances  in  reply.  But  the  broader  and  the  true 
answer  to  the  objection  is,  that  the  gospel  was  promul¬ 
gated  to  teach  principles  and  not  a  code ;  that  it 
included  the  foundation  of  a  society  in  which  those 

*  Page  490.  f  Luke  ii.  51. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


145 


principles  were  to  be  conserved,  developed,  and  applied ; 
and  that  down  to  this  day  there  is  not  a  moral  question 
of  all  those  which  the  Reply  does  or  does  not  enumerate, 
nor  is  there  a  question  of  duty  arising  in  the  course 
of  life  for  any  of  us,  that  is  not  determinable  in  all 
its  essentials  by  applying  to  it  as  a  touchstone  the 
principles  declared  in  the  Gospel.  Is  not,  then,  the  hiatus , 
which  the  Reply  has  discovered  in  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord,  an  imaginary  hiatus  f  Nay,  are  the  suggested  im¬ 
provements  of  that  teaching  really  gross  deteriorations  ? 
Where  would  have  been  the  wisdom  of  delivering  to  an 
uninstructed  population  of  a  particular  age  a  codified 
religion,  which  was  to  serve  for  all  nations,  all  ages,  all 
states  of  civilization?  Why  was  not  room  to  be  left  for 
the  career  of  human  thought  in  finding  out,  and  in 
working  out,  the  adaptation  of  Christianity  to  the  ever- 
varying  movement  of  the  world?  And  how  is  it  that 
they  who  will  not  admit  that  a  revelation  is  in  place 
when  it  has  in  view  the  great  and  necessary  work  of 
conflict  against  sin,  are  so  free  in  recommending  enlarge¬ 
ments  of  that  Revelation  for  purposes,  as  to  which  no 
such  necessity  can  be  pleaded  ? 

I  have  known  a  person  who,  after  studying  the  old 
classical  or  Olympian  religion  for  the  third  part  of  a 
century,  at  length  began  to  hope  that  he  had  some 
partial  comprehension  of  it,  some  inkling  of  what  it 
meant.  Woe  is  him  that  he  was  not  conversant  either 
with  the  faculties  or  Avith  the  methods  of  the  Reply, 
Avhich  apparently  can  dispose  in  half  an  hour  of  any 
problem,  dogmatic,  historical,  or  moral  •  and  which 
accordingly  takes  occasion  to  assure  us  that  Buddha 
Avas  “  in  many  respects  the  greatest  religious  teacher 
this  world  has  ever  known,  the  broadest,  the  most 
i. 


L 


146 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY 


intellectual  of  them  all.”  *  On  this  I  shall  only  say  that 
an  attempt  to  bring  Buddha  and  Buddhism  in  line 
together  is  far  beyond  my  reach,  but  that  every  Christian, 
knowing  in  some  degree  what  Christ  is,  and  what  He 
has  done  for  the  world,  can  only  be  the  more  thankful  if 
Buddha,  or  Confucius,  or  any  other  teacher  has  in  any 
point,  and  in  any  measure,  come  near  to  the  outskirts  of 
His  ineffable  greatness  and  glory. 

It  is  my  fault,  or  my  misfortune,  to  observe,  in  this 
lteply,  an  inaccuracy  of  reference,  which  would  of  itself 
suffice  to  render  it  remarkable.  Christ,  we  are  told,| 
denounced  the  chosen  people  of  God  as  “  a  generation  of 
vipers.”  This  phrase  is  applied  by  the  Baptist  to  the 
crowd  who  came  to  seek  baptism  from  him ;  but  it  is 
only  applied  by  our  Lord  to  Scribes  or  Pharisees,!  w^° 
are  so  commonly  placed  by  Him  in  contrast  with  the 
people.  The  error  is  repeated  in  the  mention  of  whited 
sepulchres.  Take  again  the  version  of  the  story  of 
Ananias  and  Sapphira.  We  are  told  §  that  the  apostles 
conceived  the  idea  “  of  having  all  things  in  common.” 
In  the  narrative  there  is  no  statement,  no  suggestion 
of  the  kind ;  it  is  a  pure  interpolation.  ||  Motives  of  a 
reasonable  prudence  are  stated  as  matter  of  fact  to  have 
influenced  the  offending  couple — another  pure  inter¬ 
polation.  After  the  catastrophe  of  Ananias  “  the 
apostles  sent  for  his  wife” — a  third  interpolation.  I 
refer  only  to  these  points  as  exhibitions  of  an  habitual 
and  dangerous  inaccuracy,  and  without  any  attempt  at 
present  to  discuss  the  case,  in  which  the  judgments  of 


*  Page  491.  f  Pages  492,  500. 

X  Luke  iii.  7  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  33,  and  xii.  34. 

§  Page  494.  ||  Acts  iy.  32-37. 


INGrERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


147 


God  are  exhibited  on  their  severer  side,  and  in  which  I 
cannot,  like  the  Reply,  undertake  summarily  to  deter¬ 
mine  for  what  causes  the  Almighty  should  or  should  not 
take  life,  or  delegate  the  power  to  take  it. 

Again,  we  have  *  these  words  given  as  a  quotation 
from  the  Bible  : 

“They  who  believe  and  are  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  they 
who  believe  not  shall  be  damned ;  and  these  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.” 

The  second  clause  thus  reads  as  if  applicable  to  the 
persons  mentioned  in  the  first ;  that  is  to  say,  to  those 
who  reject  the  tidings  of  the  gospel.  But  instead  of  its 
being  a  continuous  passage,  the  latter  section  is  brought 
out  of  another  Gospel,  St.  Matthew’s,  and  another  con¬ 
nection  ;  and  it  is  really  written,  not  of  those  who  do 
not  believe,  but  of  those  who  refuse  to  perform  offices 
of  charity  to  their  neighbour  in  his  need.  It  would 
be  wrong  to  call  this  intentional  misrepresentation ;  but 
can  it  be  called  less  than  somewhat  reckless  negligence  h 

It  is  a  more  special  misfortune  to  find  a  writer  arguing 
on  the  same  side  with  his  critic,  and  yet  for  the  critic 
not  to  be  able  to  agree  with  him.  But  so  it  is  with 
reference  to  the  great  subject  of  immortality,  as  treated 
in  the  Reply. 

“  The  idea  of  immortality,  that,  like  a  sea,  has  ebbed  and  flowed 
in  the  human  heart,  with  its  countless  waves  of  hope  and  fear 
beating  against  the  shores  and  rocks  of  time  and  fate,  was  not  born 
of  any  book,  nor  of  any  creed,  nor  of  any  religion.  It  was  born  of 
human  affection ;  and  it  will  continue  to  ebb  and  flow  beneath  the 
mist  and  clouds  of  doubt  and  darkness,  as  long  as  love  kisses  the 
lips  of  death.”  f 

*  Page  486. 


t  Page  483. 


148 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


Here  we  have  a  very  interesting  chapter  of  the  his¬ 
tory  of  human  opinion  disposed  of  in  the  usual  summary 
way,  by  a  statement  which,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is 
developed,  not  out  of  history,  but  out  of  the  writer’s 
inner  consciousness.  If  the  belief  in  immortality  is  not 
connected  with  any  revelation  or  religion,  but  is  simply 
the  expression  of  a  subjective  want,  then  plainly  we 
may  expect  the  expression  of  it  to  be  strong  and  clear 
in  proportion  to  the  various  degrees  in  which  faculty 
is  developed  among  the  various  races  of  mankind.  But 
how  does  the  matter  stand  historically  ?  The  Egyptians 
were  not  a  people  of  very  high  intellectual  development, 
and  yet  their  religious  system  Was  strictly  associated 
with,  I  might  rather  say  founded  on,  the  belief  in 
immortality.  The  ancient  Greeks,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  a  race  of  astonishing,  perhaps  unrivalled,  intellec¬ 
tual  capacity.  But  not  only  did  they,  in  prehistoric 
ages,  derive  their  scheme  of  a  future  world  from  Egypt ; 
we  find  also  that,  with  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  advance 
of  the  Hellenic  civilization,  the  constructive  ideas  of  the 
system  lost  all  life  and  definite  outline,  and  the  most 
powerful  mind  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  that  of  Aristotle, 
had  no  clear  conception  whatever  of  a  personal  existence 
in  a  future  state. 

The  favourite  doctrine  of  the  Reply  is  immunity  of  all 
error  in  belief  from  moral  responsibility.  In  the  first 
page  *  this  is  stated  with  reserve  as  the  “  innocence 
of  honest  error.”  But  why  such  a  limitation?  The 
Reply  warms  with  its  subject ;  it  shows  us  that  no 
error  can  be  otherwise  than  honest,  inasmuch  as  nothing 
which  involves  honesty,  or  its  reverse,  can,  from  the 


INCtERSOLL  on  CHRISTIANITY, 


149 


constitution  of  our  nature,  enter  into  the  formation  of 
opinion.  Here  is  the  full-blown  exposition  ; 

“  The  brain  thinks  without  asking  our  consent.  We  believe, 
or  we  disbelieve,  without  an  effort  of  the  will.  Belief  is  a  result. 
It  is  the  effect  of  evidence  upon  the  mind.  The  scales  turn  in  spite 
of  him  who  watches.  There  is  no  opportunity  of  being  honest ,  or 
dishonest ,  in  the  formation  of  an  opinion.  The  conclusion  is  entirely 
independent  of  desire.”  * 

The  reasoning  faculty  is,  therefore,  wholly  extrinsic 
to  our  moral  nature,  and  no  influence  is  or  can  be 
received  or  imparted  between  them.  I  know  not 
whether  the  meaning  is  that  all  the  faculties  of  our 
nature  are  like  so  many  separate  departments  in  one  of 
the  modern  shops  that  supply  all  human  wants ;  that 
will,  memory,  imagination,  affection,  passion,  each  has 
its  own  separate  domain  and  that  they  meet  only  for 
a  comparison  of  results,  just  to  tell  one  another  what 
they  have  severally  been  doing.  It  is  difficult  to  con¬ 
ceive,  if  this  be  so,  wherein  consists  the  personality, 
or  individuality,  or  organic  unity  of  man.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  see  that  while  the  Reply  aims  at  uplifting 
human  nature,  it  in  reality  plunges  us  f  into  the  abyss 
of  degradation  by  the  destruction  of  moral  freedom, 
responsibility,  and  unity.  For  we  are  justly  told  that 
“reason  is  the  supreme  and  final  test.”  Action  may 
be  merely  instinctive  and  habitual,  or  it  may  be  con¬ 
sciously  founded  on  formulated  thought ;  but,  in  the 
cases  where  it  is  instinctive  and  habitual,  it  passes  over, 
so  soon  as  it  is  challenged,  into  the  other  category,  and 
finds  a  basis  for  itself  in  some  form  of  opinion.  But, 
says  the  Reply,  we  have  no  responsibility  for  our 


*  Page  176, 


f  Page  475. 


150 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


opinions :  we  cannot  help  forming  them  according  to 
the  evidence  as  it  presents  itself  to  us.  Observe,  the 
doctrine  embraces  every  kind  of  opinion,  and  embraces 
all  alike,  opinion  on  subjects  where  we  like  or  dislike, 
as  well  as  upon  subjects  where  we  merely  affirm  or  deny 
in  some  medium  absolutely  colourless.  For,  if  a  dis¬ 
tinction  be  taken  between  the  colourless  and  the  coloured 
medium,  between  conclusions  to  which  passion  or  pro¬ 
pensity  or  imagination  inclines  us,  and  conclusions  to 
which  these  have  nothing  to  say,  then  the  whole  ground 
will  be  cut  away  from  under  the  feet  of  this  author, 
and  he  will  have  to  build  again  ab  initio.  Let  us 
try  this  by  a  test  case.  A  father  who  has  believed  his 
son  to  have  been  through  life  upright,  suddenly  finds 
that  charges  are  made  from  various  quarters  against  his 
integrity.  Or  a  friend,  greatly  dependent  for  the  work 
of  his  life  on  the  co-operation  of  another  friend,  is  told 
that  that  comrade  is  counterworking  and  betraying  him. 
I  make  no  assumption  now  as  to  the  evidence  or  the 
result ;  but  I  ask  which  of  them  could  approach  the 
investigation  without  feeling  a  desire  to  be  able  to 
acquit  ?  And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  desire  to  con¬ 
demn?  Would  Elizabeth  have  had  no  leaning  towards 
finding  Mary  Stuart  implicated  in  a  conspiracy  ?  Did 
English  judges  and  juries  approach  with  an  unbiassed 
mind  the  trials  for  the  Popish  plot?  Were  the  opinions 
formed  by  the  English  Parliament  on  the  Treaty  of 
Limerick  formed  without  the  intervention  of  the  will  ? 
Did  Napoleon  judge  according  to  the  evidence  when  he 
acquitted  himself  in  the  matter  of  the  Due  d’Enghien  ? 
Does  the  intellect  sit  in  a  solitary  chamber,  like  Galileo 
in  the  palace  of  the  Vatican,  and  pursue  celestial 
observation  all  untouched,  while  the  turmoil  of  earthly 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


151 


business  is  raging  every where  around  ?  According  to 
the  Reply,  it  must  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  there 
is  anywhere  in  the  world  such  a  thing  as  bias,  or  pre¬ 
judice,  or  prepossession  :  they  are  words  without  mean¬ 
ing  in  regard  to  our  judgments,  for,  even  if  they  could 
raise  a  clamour  from  without,  the  intellect  sits  within, 
in  an  atmosphere  of  serenity,  and,  like  Justice,  is  deaf 
and  blind,  as  well  as  calm. 

In  addition  to  all  other  faults,  I  hold  that  this  philo¬ 
sophy,  or  phantasm  of  philosophy,  is  eminently  retro¬ 
gressive.  Human  nature,  in  its  compound  of  flesh  and 
spirit,  becomes  more  complex  with  the  progress  of 
civilization ;  with  the  steady  multiplication  of  wants, 
and  of  means  for  their  supply.  With  complication, 
introspection  has  largely  extended,  and  I  believe  that, 
as  observation  extends  its  field,  so  far  from  isolating  the 
intelligence  and  making  it  autocratic  it  tends  more  and 
more  to  enhance  and  multiply  the  infinitely  subtle,  as 
well  as  the  broader  and  more  palpable  modes,  in  which 
the  interaction  of  the  human  faculties  is  carried  on 
Who  among  us  has  not  had  occasion  to  observe,  in  the 
course  of  his  experience,  how  largely  the  intellectual 
power  of  a  man  is  affected  by  the  demands  of  life  on  his 
moral  powers,  and  how  they  open  and  grow,  or  dry  up 
and  dwindle,  according  to  the  manner  in  which  those 
demands  are  met. 

Genius  itself,  however  purely  a  conception  of  the  in¬ 
tellect,  is  not  exempt  from  the  strong  influences  of  joy 
and  suffering,  love  and  hatred,  hope  and  fear,  in  the 
development  of  its  powers.  It  may  be  that  Homer, 
Shakespeare,  Goethe,  basking  upon  the  whole  in  the 
sunshine  of  life,  drew  little  supplementary  force  from 
its  trials  and  agitations.  But  the  history  of  one  not 


152 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


less  wonderful  than  any  of  these,  the  career  of  Dante, 
tells  a  different  tale ;  and  one  of  the  latest  and  most 
searching  investigators  of  his  history  *  tells,  and  shows 
us,  how  the  experience  of  his  life  co-operated  with  his 
extraordinary  natural  gifts  and  capabilities  to  make  him 
what  he  was.  Under  the  three  great  heads  of  love, 
belief,  and  patriotism,  his  life  was  a  continued  course  of 
ecstatic  or  agonizing  trials.  The  strain  of  these  trials 
was  discipline  :  discipline  was  experience ;  and  experi¬ 
ence  was  elevation  and  expansion.  No  reader  of  his 
greatest  work  will,  I  believe,  hold  with  the  Reply  that 
his  thoughts,  conclusions,  judgments  were  simple  results 
of  an  automatic  process,  in  which  the  will  and  affections 
had  no  share,  that  reasoning  operations  are  like  the 
whir  of  a  clock  running  down,  and  we  can  no  more 
arrest  the  process  or  alter  the  conclusion  than  the 
wheels  can  stop  the  movement  or  the  noise,  f 

The  doctrine  taught  in  the  Reply,  that  belief  is,  as  a 
general,  nay,  universal,  law,  independent  of  the  will, 
surely  proves,  when  examined,  to  be  a  plausibility  of  the 
shallowest  kind.  Even  in  arithmetic,  if  a  boy,  through 

*  Scartazzini,  Dante  Alighieri,  ‘Seine  zeit,  sein  leben,  und  seine 
werke,’  bk.  ii.  ch.  y.  p.  119;  also  pp.  438,  439.  Biel,  1869. 

f  I  possess  the  confession  of  an  illiterate  criminal,  made,  I  think,  in 
1834,  under  the  following  circumstances:  The  new  poor  law  Act  had 
just  been  passed  in  England,  and  it  required  persons  needing  relief  to 
go  into  the  workhouse  as  a  condition  of  receiving  it.  In  some  parts  of 
the  country,  this  provision  produced  a  proftmnd  popular  panic.  The 
man  in  question  was  destitute  at  the  time.  He  was  (I  think)  an  old 
widower  with  four  very  young  sons.  He  rose  in  the  night  and 
strangled  them  all,  one  after  another,  with  a  blue  handkerchief,  not 
from  want  of  fatherly  affection,  but  to  keep  them  out  of  the  workhouse. 
The  confession  of  this  peasant,  simple  in  phrase,  but  intensely  im¬ 
passioned,  strongly  reminds  me  of  the  Ugolino  of  Dante,  and  appears 
to  make  some  approach  to  its  sublimity.  Such,  in  given  circumstances, 
is  the  effect  of  moral  agony  on  rnental  power, 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


153 


dislike  of  his  employment,  and  consequent  lack  of 
attention,  brings  out  a  wrong  result  for  his  sum,  it  can 
hardly  be  said  that  his  conclusion  is  absolutely  and  in 
all  respects  independent  of  his  will.  Moving  onward, 
point  by  point,  toward  the  centre  of  the  argument,  I  will 
next  take  an  illustration  from  mathematics.  It  has 
(I  apprehend)  been  demonstrated  that  the  relation  of 
the  diameter  to  the  circumference  of  a  circle  is  not 
susceptible  of  full  numerical  expression.  Yet,  from 
time  to  time,  treatises  are  published  which  boldly 
announce  that  they  set  forth  the  quadrature  of  the 
circle.  I  do  not  deny  that  this  may  be  purely  intel¬ 
lectual  error ;  but  would  it  not,  on  the  other  hand,  be 
hazardous  to  assert  that  no  grain  of  egotism  or  ambition 
has  ever  entered  into  the  composition  of  any  one  of  such 
treatises'?  I  have  selected  these  instances  as,  perhaps, 
the  most  favourable  that  can  be  found  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Reply.  But  the  truth  is  that,  if  we  set  aside 
matters  of  trivial  import,  the  enormous  majority  of 
human  judgments  are  those  into  which  the  biassing 
power  of  likes  and  dislikes  more  or  less  largely  enters. 
I  admit,  indeed,  that  the  illative  faculty  works  under 
rules  upon  which  choice  and  inclination  ought  to  exercise 
no  influence  whatever.  But  even  if  it  were  granted 
that  in  fact  the  faculty  of  discourse  is  exempted  from 
all  such  influence  within  its  own  province,  yet  we  come 
no  nearer  to  the  mark,  because  that  faculty  has  to  work 
upon  materials  supplied  to  it  by  other  faculties ;  it 
draws  conclusions  according  to  premises,  and  the  question 
has  to  be  determined  whether  our  conceptions  set  forth 
in  those  premises  are  or  are  not  influenced  by  moral 
causes.  For,  if  they  be  so  influenced,  then  in  vain  will 
be  the  proof  that  the  understanding  has  dealt  loyally 


154  INT4ERS0LL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 

and  exactly  with  the  materials  it  had  to  work  upon ; 
inasmuch  as,  although  the  intellectual  process  be  normal 
in  itself,  the  operation  may  have  been  tainted  ab  initio 
by  colouring  and  distorting  influences  which  have 
falsified  the  initial  conceptions. 

Let  me  now  take  an  illustration  from  the  extreme 
opposite  quarter  to  that  which  I  first  drew  upon.  The 
system  called  Thuggism,  represented  in  the  practice  of 
the  Thugs,  taught  that  the  act,  which  we  describe  as 
murder,  was  innocent.  Was  this  an  honest  error  ?  Was 
it  due,  in  its  authors  as  well  as  in  those  who  blindly 
followed  them,  to  an  automatic  process  of  thought,  in 
which  the  will  was  not  consulted,  and  which  accordingly 
could  entail  no  responsibility  ?  If  it  was,  then  it  is 
plain  that  the  whole  foundations,  not  of  belief,  but  of 
social  morality,  are  broken  up.  If  it  was  not,  then  the 
sweeping  doctrine  of  the  present  writer  on  the  necessary 
blamelessness  of  erroneous  conclusions  tumbles  to  the 
ground  like  a  house  of  cards  under  the  breath  of  the 
child  who  built  it. 

In  truth,  the  pages  of  the  Reply,  and  the  letter  which 
has  more  recently  followed  it,  *  themselves  demonstrate 
that  what  the  writer  has  asserted  wholesale  he  over¬ 
throws  and  denies  in  detail.  “You  will  admit,”  says 
the  Reply,  “  that  he  who  now  persecutes  for  opinion’s 
sake  is  infamous.”  |  But  why  1  Suppose  he  thinks  that 
by  persecution  he  can  bring  a  man  from  soul-destroying 
falsehood  to  soul-saving  truth,  and  thus  from  misery  to 
felicity,  this  opinion  may  reflect  on  his  intellectual 
debility  :  but  that  is  his  misfortune,  not  his  fault.  His 

*  Noi'th  American  Review  for  January,  1888,  “Another  letter  to 
Dr.  Field.” 

f  Pnge  477. 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY.  155 

brain  has  thought  without  asking  his  consent ;  he  has 
believed  or  disbelieved  without  an  effort  of  the  will.* 
Yet  the  very  writer,  who  has  thus  established  his  title 
to  think,  is  the  first  to  hurl  at  him  an  anathema  for 
thinking.  And  again,  in  the  Letter  to  Dr.  Field, | 
“  the  dogma  of  eternal  pain  ”  is  described  as  “  that 
infamy  of  infamies.”  I  am  not  about  to  discuss  the 
subject  of  future  retribution.  If  I  were,  it  would  be  my 
first  duty  to  show  that  this  writer  has  not  adequately 
considered  either  the  scope  of  his  own  arguments  (which 
in  no  way  solve  the  difficulties  he  presents)  or  the 
meaning  of  his  own  words  ;  and  my  second  would  be 
to  recommend  his  perusal  of  what  Bishop  Butler  has 
suggested  on  this  head.  But  I  am  at  present  on  ground 
altogether  different.  I  am  trying  another  issue.  This 
author  says  we  believe  or  disbelieve  without  the  action 
of  the  will,  and,  consequently,  belief  or  disbelief  is  not 
the  proper  subject  of  praise  or  blame.  And  yet,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  very  same  authority,  the  dogma  of  eternal 
pain  is  what  ? — not  “  an  error  of  errors,”  but  an  “  infamy 
of  infamies ;  ”  and  though  to  hold  a  negative  may  not  be 
a  subject  of  moral  reproach,  yet  to  hold  the  affirmative 
may.  Truly  it  may  be  asked,  is  not  this  a  fountain 
which  sends  forth  at  once  sweet  waters  and  bitter  1 
Once  more.  I  will  pass  away  from  tender  ground, 
and  will  endeavour  to  lodge  a  broader  appeal  to  the 
enlightened  judgment  of  the  author.  Says  Odysseus  in 
the  ‘  Iliad,’  ^  ovk  uyaOov  TroXvKoipavLrj :  and  a  large  part  of 
the  world,  stretching  this  sentiment  beyond  its  original 


*  Page  476. 


f  N.  A.  i?.,  vol.  146,  p.  33. 
X  Bk.  ii.  204. 


156  INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY, 

meaning,  have  held  that  the  root  of  civil  power  is  not  *in 
the  community,  but  in  its  head.  In  opposition  to  this 
doctrine,  the  American  written  Constitution,  and  the 
entire  American  tradition,  teach  the  right  of  a  nation  to 
self-government.  And  these  propositions,  which  have 
divided  and  still  divide  the  world,  open  out  respectively 
into  vast  systems  of  irreconcilable  ideas  and  laws,  prac¬ 
tices  and  habits  of  mind.  Will  any  rational  man,  above 
all  will  any  American,  contend  that  these  conflicting 
systems  have  been  adopted,  upheld,  and  enforced  on  one 
side  and  the  other,  in  the  daylight  of  pure  reasoning 
only,  and  that  moral,  or  immoral,  causes  have  had 
nothing  to  do  with  their  adoption  ?  That  the  intellect 
has  worked  impartially,  like  a  steam-engine,  and  that 
selfishness,  love  of  fame,  love  of  money,  love  of  power, 
envy,  wrath,  and  malice,  or  again  bias  in  its  least 
noxious  forms,  have  never  had  anything  to  do  with 
generating  the  opposing  movements,  or  the  frightful 
collisions  in  which  they  have  resulted  ?  If  we  say  that 
they  have  not,  we  contradict  the  universal  judgment  of 
mankind.  If  we  say  they  have,  then  mental  processes 
are  not  automatic,  but  may  be  influenced  by  the  will 
and  by  the  passions,  affections,  habits,  fancies,  that  sway 
or  solicit  the  will ;  and  this  writer  will  not  have  advanced 
a  step  toward  proving  the  universal  innocence  of  error, 
until  he  has  shown  that  propositions  of  religion  are 
essentially  unlike  almost  all  other  propositions,  and  that 
no  man  has  ever  been,  or  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
can  be,  affected  in  their  acceptance  or  rejection  by  moral 
causes. 

To  sum  up.  There  are  many  passages  in  these  note¬ 
worthy  papers  which,  taken  by  themselves,  are  calcu¬ 
lated  to  command  warm  sympathy.  Towards  the  close 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


157 


of  his  final,  or  latest  letter,  the  writer  expresses  himself 
as  follows  : 

“Neither  in  the  interest  of  truth,  nor  for  the  benefit  of  man, 
is  it  necessary  to  assert  what  we  do  not  know.  No  cause  is  great 
enough  to  demand  a  sacrifice  of  candour.  The  mysteries  of  life 
and  death,  of  good  and  evil,  have  never  yet  been  solved.”  * 

9 

How  good,  how  wise  are  these  words  !  But  coming 
at  the  close  of  the  controversy,  have  they  not  some  of 
the  ineffectual  features  of  a  death-bed  repentance  ? 
They  can  hardly  be  said  to  represent  in  all  points  the 
rules  under  which  the  pages  preceding  them  have  been 
composed ;  or  he,  who  so  justly  says  that  we  ought  not 
to  assert  what  we  do  not  know,  could  hardly  have  laid 
down  the  law  as  we  find  it  a  few  pages  earlier,!  when  it 
is  pronounced  that  u  an  infinite  God  has  no  excuse  for 
leaving  His  children  in  doubt  and  darkness.”  Candour 
and  upright  intention  are  indeed  everywhere  manifest 
amidst  the  flashing  coruscations  which  really  compose 
the  staple  of  the  article.  Candour  and  upright  inten¬ 
tion  also  impose  upon  a  commentator  the  duty  of  formu¬ 
lating  his  animadversions.  I  sum  them  up  under  two 
heads.  Whereas  we  are  placed  in  an  atmosphere  of 
mystery,  relieved  only  by  a  little  sphere  of  light  round 
each  of  us,  like  a  clearing  in  an  American  forest  (which 
this  writer  has  so  well  described),  and  rarely  can  see 
farther  than  is  necessary  for  the  direction  of  our  own 
conduct  from  day  to  day,  we  find  here,  assumed  by  a 
particular  person,  the  character  of  an  universal  judge 
without  appeal.  And  whereas  the  highest  self-restraint 


*  N.  A.  A,  vol.  146,  p.  46. 


f  Ibid,  p.  40. 


158 


INGERSOLL  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


is  necessary  in  these  dark  hut,  therefore,  all  the  more 
exciting  inquiries,  in  order  to  keep  steady  the  ever-quiver¬ 
ing  balance  of  our  faculty  of  judgment,  this  writer 
chooses  to  ride  an  unbroken  horse,  and  to  throw  the 
reins  upon  his  neck.  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  a 
sample  of  the  results. 


V. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF 

RELIGION.* 

1888. 

In  the  great  movement  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
England  stands  contrasted  with  other  great  European 
countries  in  this  vital  respect,  that  the  instinct  of 
national  unity  was  throughout  more  powerful  than 
the  disintegrating  tendencies  of  religious  controversy. 
Hence  there  went  abroad  a  notion,  highly  injurious  to 
the  nation,  that  it  was  ready  to  accept  whatever  religion 
the  sovereign  might  think  proper  to  give  it.  I  recollect 
a  slight  but  curious  illustration  of  this  fact  as  recently 
as  near  the  beginning  of  the  present  auspicious  reign. 
In  the  year  1838,  travelling  through  Calabria,  I  fell 
into  conversation  with  an  intelligent  Italian  of  the 
middle  class,  interested  in  the  religion  of  his  country. 
He  expressed  to  me  his  fervent  desire  that  the  Queen 
might  become  Roman  Catholic ;  for  in  that  case  it  would 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  English  nation 
would  also  return  to  the  obedience  of  the  Pope  !  It  is 
plain  that,  both  in  England  and  in  Scotland,  purely 
secular  interests  played  a  very  great  and  important 


Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 


160  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

part.  In  the  reign  of  Mary,  the  Latin  service  was  soon 
and  easily  re-established  :  but  the  reaction  did  not  dare 
to  lay  a  linger  on  the  alienated  estates  of  the  dissolved 
monasteries.  There  was  a  strong  Roman,  and  a  strong 
Puritan,  sentiment  of  religion.  But  what  afterwards 
came  to  be  known  as  Anglicanism,  the  product  of  a 
composition  of  heterogeneous  forces,  had  neither  a 
visible  nor,  except  perhaps  in  individual  cases,  a  con¬ 
scious  existence.  There  was  not,  as  there  was  in 
Scotland  and  in  Ireland,  a  single  dominant  religious 
tendency,  Protestant  in  the  one,  Roman  Catholic  (much 
more  decisively)  in  the  other.  And  it  was  the  com¬ 
paratively  near  balance  of  the  various  forces,  which 
made  it  possible  to  have  in  England,  not  merely  one,  but 
three  or  four  religious  revolutions ;  revolutions  which, 
by  the  action  of  the  same  causes,  were  softened  as  well 
as  multiplied. 

The  consequence  has  been  that  the  historic  presenta¬ 
tion  of  the  subject  ever  since  to  general  readers  has  been 
secular,  and  not  religious,  or  even  ecclesiastical.  It 
has  been  largely  overlooked  that  Avhat  the  sixteenth 
century  lacked,  the  seventeenth  supplied.  The  con¬ 
sciences  of  the  country  then  came  to  a  settlement  of 
their  accounts  with  one  another.  The  Anglican  idea  of 
religion,  A^ery  traceable  in  the  mind  and  action  of  Eliza¬ 
beth,  of  Parker,  and  of  Cecil,  had  received  scientific 
form  through  the  Avorks  of  Hooker.  The  Roman  antago¬ 
nist  had  been  reduced,  by  the  accommodations  of  the 
Prayer  Book  and  the  laAv,  to  civil  impotence ;  and  he 
only  counted,  in  the  grand  struggle  under  Charles  the 
First,  as  a  minor  auxiliary  on  the  royal  side.  The 
Church,  as  its  organisation  was  Avorked  under  Laud, 
had  become  a  Arast  and  definite  force,  but  it  was  fatally 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  161 


compromised  by  its  close  alliance  with  despotism  and  with 
cruel  severities,  and  in  retribution  for  its  sins  it  shared 
the  ruin  of  arbitrary  power.  In  consequence  of  this 
association  and  its  result,  for  nearly  twenty  years  the 
Puritan  element  was  supreme,  and  the  Anglican  almost 
suppressed.  But  when  the  monarchical  instinct  of  the 
nation  brought  about  the  restoration  of  Charles  the 
Second,  and  the  comparative  strength  of  the  religious 
parties  came  to  be  ascertained,  what  had  been  taken  for 
a  minority  asserted  itself  in  overwhelming  force,  and  the 
ecclesiastical  settlement  of  that  epoch,  whatever  may 
have  been  in  other  respects  its  merits  or  defects,  ex¬ 
pressed  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  probably  nine-tenths 
of  the  community,  and  is  now  running  through  its 
third  century  of  stable  duration. 

Down  to  that  time,  the  question  which  cast  of  belief 
and  opinion  should  prevail,  as  between  Anglican  and 
Puritan,  had  been  fought  within  the  precinct  of  the 
National  Church.  It  was  now  determined  by  the  sum¬ 
mary  method  of  excluding  the  weaker  party.  In  its 
negative  or  prohibitory  part,  the  settlement  accomplished 
at  the  Restoration  was  either  wholly  new,  or  it  formu¬ 
lated  a  tendency,  that  had  become  paramount,  into  a 
fact.  But  in  its  positive  bases  it  was,  as  to  all  main 
interests  and  purposes,  an  acceptance  and  revival  of  the 
Elizabethan  settlement.  On  this,  therefore,  in  giving 
an  account  of  herself,  the  Church  of  England  must  fall 
back. 

And  such  an  account  it  is  obvious  she  must,  now  and 
henceforward,  be  prepared  to  give.  It  is  no  longer  with 
her  as  it  was  in  the  eighteenth  century — and  God  forbid 
it  should  ever  be  so  again — when  her  clergy  were  the 
companions  of  the  peers  and  the  gentry,  as  magistrates 

i.  m 


162  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

on  the  bench  of  justice,  and  as  sportsmen  in  the  hunting- 
field  ;  when  she  found  no  immediate  occasion  to  look 
into  her  title-deeds,  for  she  rested  on  possession  and  on 
quietude.  In  that  less  tranquil  but  nobler  form  of 
existence,  which  she  is  now  called  to  sustain,  she  has  to 
extricate  her  own  religious  history  from  the  civil  broils, 
from  the  economical  and  literary  devastations,  from  the 
great  national  to-and-fro  of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  and 
to  show  the  world  whether,  along  with  an  external, 
material,  and  legal  framework  that  is  unquestioned,  she 
has  derived  herself  as  a  religious  society  in  historical 
continuity  from  the  ancient  Church  of  the  country,  or 
whether,  as  her  opponents  may  charge,  she  is  a  construc¬ 
tion  of  lath  and  plaster  set  up,  in  mean  and  futile  imita¬ 
tion,  by  the  side  of  the  solid  and  majestic  structure  of 
the  middle  age. 

And  here  I  must  ask  pardon  for  a  momentary  digres¬ 
sion.  In  recurring  to  the  year  1662,  it  is  impossible 
wholly  to  avoid  the  deeply  interesting  question,  What 
became  of  the  partner  ejected  from  the  firm  ?  The  old 
English  Puritanism  has  largely  passed,  on  a  widened 
scale,  and  with  features  mitigated  but  developed  and 
magnified,  into  the  modern  English  Nonconformity.  I  do 
not  mean  that  it  has  been  by  a  direct  or  uniform,  but  by 
a  real  if  mostly  a  moral  succession.  In  1662  it  expressed, 
as  I  believe,  the  sense  of  a  small  numerical  minority  of 
the  country,  but  with  more  than  a  proportionate  share 
both  of  its  distinguished  theologians  and  of  its  religious 
life.  The  spiritual  side  of  its  position  has  been  set 
forth,  within  not  very  many  years,  in  a  masterly  tract 
by  Dr.  Allon.  After  the  ejectment  from  the  national 
establishment  of  religion,  it  travelled  through  a  period 
of  declension.  But  it  has  since  developed,  throughout 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  163 

the  British  Empire,  in  the  United  States,  and  in  heathen 
lands,  into  a  vast  and  diversified  organisation  of  what 
may  be  roughly  termed  an  Evangelical  Protestantism, 
which,  viewed  at  large,  is  inclusive  of  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  in  Scotland  and  elsewhere  ;  which  has  received 
a  large  collateral  accession  from  the  movement  of  Wesley  ; 
and  which  exceeds,  if  not  in  aggregate  numbers,  yet 
apparently  in  the  average  of  religious  energies,  the  old 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  communities  on  the  Continent. 
It  may  be  estimated  moderately  at  one-tenth  of  the 
entire  numerical  strength  of  Christendom ;  it  depends 
almost  entirely  on  the  voluntary  tributes  of  Christian 
affection ;  and  it  has  become  a  solid  inexorable  fact  of 
religious  history,  which  no  rational  inquirer,  into  either 
its  present  or  its  future,  can  venture  to  overlook  in  any 
estimate  of  Christendom  at  large.  But  my  purpose  at 
this  moment  is  confined  within  a  circle  both  narrower 
and  far  more  sharply  defined. 

The  Christian  Church,  as  it  stood  before  the  Refor¬ 
mation,  was  throughout  its  whole  extent  an  organism 
governed  by  fixed  laws ;  and  it  possessed  a  machinery,  in 
which  from  the  very  first  a  lay,  and  later  on  a  civil  or 
temporal,  element  found  place,  and  which  was  applicable 
both  to  legislative  and  to  administrative  purposes.  In 
the  East,  the  different  portions  of  this  vast  body  were 
not  united  by  any  bond  of  such  a  nature  as  to  involve 
the  interference  of  a  central  power  by  the  exercise  of 
jurisdiction  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  the  local  Church. 
But  in  the  West  there  had  gradually  grown  up  usages, 
which  became  a  complex  juridical  system,  and  which 
assigned  to  the  Roman  See  large,  and  not  everywhere 
defined,  prerogatives  of  interposition  in  the  affairs  of 
each  national  Church,  In  most  of  the  countries  of  the 


164  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

Reformation,  the  framework,  through  which  this  juridical 
system  took  effect,  was  destroyed  in  those  ruling  parts, 
which  formed  the  chief  channel  of  connection  with  the 
former  organisation.  In  England  they  were  retained ; 
and  jprima  facie  the  effect  of  the  legislative  changes, 
begun  under  Henry  the  Eighth  and  consummated  under 
Elizabeth,  was  to  place  the  local  or  national  Church, 
relatively  to  the  rest  of  Christendom  taken  at  large, 
in  a  position  mainly  analogous  to  that  occupied  by  the 
Churches  of  the  East. 

Being,  however,  a  society  which  claims  in  her  present 
state  continuity  with  what  she  was  in  a  former  state, 
she  is  liable  to  a  challenge  and  to  the  denial  of  her 
claim  on  any  one  at  least  of  the  four  following  grounds  : — 

1.  By  changes  of  doctrine,  she  altered  the  one  per¬ 
petual  Christian  faith,  and  became  heretical. 

2.  By  changes  of  rite,  she  failed  to  fulfil  the  sacra¬ 
mental  communion  of  the  Church,  and  her  ordinances, 
or  vital  portions  of  them,  became  ineffectual  or  invalid. 

3.  By  changes  of  law,  she  destroyed  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Roman  See  in  England,  which,  as  being  divine, 
it  was  beyond  her  power  lawfully  to  touch,  and  she 
thus  became  schismatical. 

4.  In  the  three  foregoing  propositions,  exception  is 
taken  only  to  the  nature  of  the  changes  made,  and  not 
to  the  nature  of  the  authority  which  made  them.  But 
they  were  not  made,  as  is  alleged,  by  the  Church  at  all. 
They  were  made  without  or  against  her  by  the  action 
of  the  Civil  Power,  which  as  such  was  incompetent  to 
act  in  the  matter,  and  the  changes  were  therefore  null 
for  want  of  sanction. 

Of  these  four  great  counts  of  indictment,  the  three 
first  are  properly  theological,  and  being  beyond  my 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  165 

reach  are  wholly  excluded  from  the  purview  of  the 
present  paper. 

But  the  fourth  is  as  properly  historical,  and  my  object 
in  these  pages  is,  without  prejudice  to  any  other  portion 
of  the  subject,  to  establish  the  negative  of  this  pro- 
position,  and  to  show  that,  in  the  last  and  determining 
resort,  the  changes  in  question  were  not  acts  of  the 
State  forced  upon  the  Church,  but  acts  of  the  Church 
herself,  which  supply  the  key  to  her  juridical  position 
held  ever  since  down  to  the  present  day. 

A  cloud  of  vague  misrepresentation  has  down  to  a 
recent  period  overlaid  the  facts.  The  passions  of  Henry, 
the  shif tings  of  Cranmer,  the  cruel  executions  of  Fisher 
and  More,  the  contrast  of  characters  between  the  pre¬ 
ceding  and  the  succeeding  queens,  the  general  prevalence 
of  violence  and  license,  all  these  are  topics  which,  care¬ 
lessly  blended  or  confused,  have  resulted  in  an  ill-defined 
and  unsifted  assumption  that  it  is  vain  to  look  for 
legality  in  the  years  which  followed  the  fall  of  Wolsey. 
Nor  has  any  systematic  effort  been  made  to  clear  the 
ground  even  in  works  so  important,  because  of  having 
been  largely  drawn  from  the  fountain-heads  of  infor¬ 
mation,  as  those  of  Burnet  and  Collier.  It  will  probably 
be  matter  of  surprise  to  most  readers  if  they  find,  not 
only  that  a  basis  of  legality,  in  its  determining  con¬ 
ditions,  for  the  proceedings  of  the  Reformation  was  laid 
during  the  tumultuous  years  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  but 
that  it  was  laid  before  Cranmer  and  the  reforming  pre¬ 
lates  had  mounted  into  seats  of  power,  and  that  it  claims 
the  authority  of  Warham,  of  Tunstal,  of  Gardiner,  and 
(not  to  mention  many  others)  even  of  Fisher. 

I.  I  will  now  proceed  to  the  proof  of  these  propositions, 


166  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

And  I  must  begin  by  reminding  the  reader  that,  in 
order  to  appreciate  with  accuracy  the  position  assigned 
to  the  Church  of  England  under  the  laws  of  the  Uni¬ 
versal  Church  by  the  great  Elizabethan  settlement,  it  is 
necessary  to  exclude  from  the  arena  of  the  discussion  a 
multitude  of  topics,  which  have  heretofore  greatly  encum¬ 
bered  the  ground  to  the  exclusion  or  the  prejudice  of 
the  matters  really  relevant. 

First,  we  must  disentangle  the  facts  which  determine 
the  canonical  character  of  the  settlement  from  the  crowd 
of  great  transactions,  essentially  political  although  with 
ecclesiastical  or  moral  bearings,  which  mark  the  three 
preceding  reigns ;  such  as  the  so-called  divorce  of  Henry 
the  Eighth,  which  was  a  legal  sentence  of  nullity  pro¬ 
nounced  on  his  marriage  with  Catherine  of  Arragon,  the 
suppression  of  the  monasteries,  the  reintroduction  of 
Papal  jurisdiction  by  the  secular  power,  the  sanguinary 
persecutions,  and  much  besides.  These  have  no  bearing 
on  the  question  whether  the  position  of  the  Church 
under  the  settlement  of  Eiizabeth  was  catholic  or 
schismatical. 

Secondly,  we  must  in  like  manner  put  aside  all  the 
excesses  of  executive  power,  such  as  the  appointment  of 
Cromwell  to  the  office  of  ecclesiastical  vicegerent,  the 
proceedings  relating  to  altars  under  Edward  the  Sixth, 
and  the  exercise  by  the  Privy  Council  of  acts  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  jurisdiction,  which  continued  in  the  reign  of 
Mary,  and  again  under  Elizabeth  during  the  brief  period 
that  preceded  the  passing  of  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  and 
Uniformity. 

Thirdly,  we  must  discard  from  our  consideration  of 
the  issue  before  us  the  private  and  personal  opinions 
entertained  either  on  religion  generally,  or  even  on  the 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  167 


particular  subject-matter,  by  persons  of  more  or  less 
influence  or  authority.  For  example,  the  mitigatory 
explanations  tendered  by  Henry  the  Eighth  in  1531  to 
the  clergy  respecting  the  headship  are  only  of  importance 
in  so  far  as  they  may  have  affected  the  conduct  of  pre¬ 
lates  or  others  in  the  Convocation,  and  cannot  govern 
the  legal  and  constitutional  meaning  of  the  documents. 
The  same  remark  will  apply  to  the  observations  of  the 
clerical  reformers  *  in  answer  to  the  suggestions  of  Cecil 
which  appear  to  have  deterred  Elizabeth  from  prose¬ 
cuting  her  design,  or  desire,  to  re-establish  the  first 
Prayer-book  of  Edward  the  Sixth  at  the  period  of  her 
accession. 

Fourthly,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  legislation 
of  Henry  the  Eighth  and  Edward  the  Sixth,  swept  away 
by  Mary,  was  only  restored  in  a  modified  form  by  Eliza¬ 
beth,  and  we  must  carefully  observe  the  modifications 
of  that  form. 

Lastly  and  principally,  we  have  to  note  that  there 
was  throughout  a  double  course  of  legislative  or  other 
public  action,  and  to  ascertain  what  is  due  to  the  secular 
and  what  to  the  ecclesiastical  power.  The  distinction 
between  the  respective  offices  of  the  State  and  the 
Church  is  powerfully  stated  in  the  famous  Preamble  to 
the  Statute  of  Appeals.  Acts  of  the  governing  body  in 
the  Church,  done  within  its  lawful  competency  under 
Henry  the  Eighth,  and  not  validly  cancelled  under 
Mary,  retained  their  ecclesiastical  force,  and  were  as 
legitimate  a  foundation  for  civil  action  under  Elizabeth, 
as  they  had  been  when  they  were  originally  passed. 

II.  In  1530-1,  Henry  the  Eighth  by  legal  chicane 


*  Strype’s  ‘Annals,’  vol.  i.,  Appendix. 


168  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

entangled  the  clergy  in  the  penalties  of  Prsemunire  for 
having  acknowledged  the  legatine  jurisdiction  of  Wolsey. 
The  commons  were  included  within  the  scope  of  his 
extravagant  propositions ;  but  with  them  the  matter 
was  settled  by  a  separate  course  of  proceedings  which 
are  irrelevant  to  the  present  purpose.  From  the  clergy 
he  demanded  (1)  a  great  subsidy  and  (2)  the  uncon¬ 
ditional  and  unlimited  acknowledgment  of  his  headship 
over  the  Church.  Not,  we  have  to  observe,  its  enact¬ 
ment,  but  the  acknowledgment  of  it  as  a  thing  already 
in  lawful  existence.  To  this  they  could  not  be  brought 
to  consent.  But  they  finally  agreed  to  it  with  a  limita¬ 
tion  expressed  in  the  following  words,  which  follow  a 
recital  of  the  services  of  Henry  to  the  Church.  “  Eccle- 
siae  et  cleri  Anglicani  .  .  .  singularem  protectorem, 
unicum  et  supremum  dominum,  et,  quantum  per  Christi 
legem  licet,  etiam  supremum  caput  ipsius  majestatem 
reco^noscimus.”  * 

The  limiting  words,  it  will  be  noticed,  apply  to  the 
term  of  headship  only ;  and  though  they  are  important 
words  they  cannot  be  understood  as  annulling  the  whole 
force  of  the  phrase.  They  were  actually  taken,  and 
justly  taken,  to  accept  the  headship  in  some  substantial 
sense. 

But  the  sentence  branches  into  three  divisions ;  and 
its  force,  as  bearing  upon  the  great  controversy  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  jurisdiction,  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the 
phrases  which  touch  the  headship.  According  to  the 
commencing  words,  the  king  is  the  singnlaris  protector  of 
the  Church  ;  and  they  hardly  affect  the  question  at  issue, 
as  they  seem  manifestly  to  refer  to  action  in  the  exterior 


*  Wilkins’s  ‘Concilia,’  iii.  742,  Feb.  11,  1530-1. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  169 


forum.  But  the  case  is  very  different  when  we  take 
the  next  limb  of  the  sentence,  which  declares  the  sove¬ 
reign  to  be  the  unicus  et  supremus  dominus  of  the  Church. 
These  words,  which  excited  no  scruple  on  the  part  either 
of  the  prelates  or  the  clergy,  appear  to  indicate  with 
great  precision  the  idea  of  the  relation  between  the 
Church  and  the  sovereign,  as  it  has  been  conceived  in 
English  law.  They  differ  from  the  declaration  of  head¬ 
ship,  inasmuch  as  they  do  not  raise  the  same  scruple  in 
religious  minds  as  to  invasion  of  the  prerogatives  of  Him 
whom  the  Scripture  *  proclaims  to  be  the  Church’s  Head  ; 
but  they  agree  with  it  in  being  sufficient  to  cover  and 
even  to  require  the  exclusion  of  the  papal,  as  of  all 
extraneous,  jurisdiction.  They  were  in  conformity  with 
the  doctrines  already  announced  by  Tunstal,  and  subse¬ 
quently  sustained  by  Gardiner  in  his  book  c  He  vera 
obedientia.’ 

In  the  convocation  of  the  province  of  Canterbury, 
there  was  no  opposition  to  the  Concessio  (so  it  was 
termed,  I  presume  on  account  of  the  subsidy)  as  thus 
worded.  When  the  president,  Archbishop  Warham, 
stated  f  that  silence  was  taken  for  consent,  he  was 
answered,  “  Then  we  all  are  silent.”  J  “  Unanimi  igitur 
consensu,”  says  the  record,  u  utraque  domus  articulo 
huie  subscripsit.”  §  In  the  province  of  York,  Tunstal, 
who  presided,  registered  ||  a  dissent,  not  from  the  words 
themselves,  but  from  a  sense  in  which  he  observes  that 
they  had  been  malignantly  understood.  In  this  protes¬ 
tation,  he  limits  the  headship  to  temporals,  and  denies 

*  Eph.  i.  22 ;  Col.  i.  18. 

f  Blunt,  1  Hist.  Church  of  England,’  i.  208. 

X  Wilkins,  iii.  725.  §  Ibid. 

||  Lingard,  iv.  215  ;  Wilkins,  iii.  745. 


170  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OE  RELIGION. 

that  the  king  is  head  next  to  Christ  in  spirituals  :  he 
submits  the  whole  of  the  protest  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  ( mater  ecclesia )  ;  he  makes  no  protestation  or 
reservation  whatever  on  behalf  of  the  Pope.  It  would 
appear  that  either  he  limited  his  objection  to  the  affirm¬ 
ative  interpretation  of  the  qualifying  words  (which 
treated  the  headship  as  positively  set  up  by  the  law  of 
Christ),  or  else  that  his  opinions  underwent  some  sub¬ 
sequent  modification.  For,  when  the  headship  had  been 
enacted  by  Parliament  in  1534  without  substantial 
qualification,  and  the  bishoj)s  were  required  to  swear  to 
it,  he  both  complied  himself,  and  promoted  the  com¬ 
pliance  of  others.* 

Warham,  who  appears  to  have  been  a  principal  agent 
in  the  accommodation  based  upon  the  qualifying  words, 
at  a  later  period  (on  Feb.  24,  1532)  protested  before 
witnesses  against  all  statutes  of  the  subsisting  Parlia¬ 
ment  which  were  in  derogation  of  the  Pontiff  or  See  of 
Rome,  or  which  were  prejudicial  to  the  ecclesiastical 
power,  or  to  the  metropolitan  church  of  Canterbury. 
But  he  does  not  retract  or  condemn  in  any  particular 
his  own  adhesion  to  the  Concessio  of  the  clergy  which 
has  been  cited  above.  It  is  strange  that  this  protest, 
such  as  it  was,  should  not  have  been  made  in  Parlia¬ 
ment.  It  is  still  more  remarkable  that  Fisher  appears 
to  have  been  an  assenting  party  to  the  course  of  pro¬ 
ceeding  adopted  in  1531.  We  are  informed  that  he  was 
one  of  the  nine  bishops  actually  present  in  the  Convo¬ 
cation  ;  and  further  that,  after  the  Act  of  Headship 
had  been  passed  by  Parliament  in  1534,  and  the  Oath  of 
Succession  was  framed  by  the  king  so  as  to  include  the 


*  Wilkins,  iii.  74G. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  171 

headship,  Fisher  took  it.*  It  seems  to  be  true  that  he 
had  never  admitted  the  so-called  divorce  ;  and  on  his 
trial  he  refused  to  swear  to  the  headship  in  the  terms 
demanded  by  Henry  :  but  we  have  no  evidence  that  he 
at  any  time  dissented  from  the  more  guarded  language 
of  the  Concessio  of  1531.  The  whole  body  of  the  bishops 
with  him  took  the  oath.  These  are  interesting  matters 
of  illustration.  But  of  course  the  main  argument 
depends  on  the  corporate  action  of  the  Church. 

Upon  the  whole  it  appears  that  the  Becognition  of 
1531  was  a  solemn  instrument  of  the  kind  known  as 
declaratory  ;  that  it  was  no  mere  submission  to  violence, 
but  the  result  of  communications  ending  in  a  deliberate 
arrangement;  that  it  was  followed  in  and  after  1534  by 
the  less  formal  but  even  wider  acknowledgments  of  the 
episcopal  body  at  large  ;  and  while  some  allowance  must 
be  made  for  royal  pressure,  that  it  was  expressive  of 
that  aversion  to  the  papal  jurisdiction  which  had  spread 
generally  'among  the  English  clergy,  and  which  was 
altogether  distinct  from  the  desire  for  doctrinal  reforma¬ 
tion.  In  further  proof  of  the  sentiments  of  the  clergy 
with  respect  to  papal  jurisdiction,  we  may  refer  to  their 
perfectly  voluntary,  if  suggested,  petition  in  Convocation 
during  the  year  1531,  for  the  abolition  of  Annates,  or 
episcopal  first-fruits.  The  petition  f  prays  that,  if  the 
Pope  should  persist  in  demanding  the  payment,  then 
and  until  he  cease  from  such  demand  “  the  obedience  of 


*  Burnet’s  ‘  Hist.’  i.  206.  Also  see  Sanders,  ‘  De  Schism.  Anglic.,’ 
pp.  106,  107  (ed.  1586)  ;  and  Brewer,  ‘  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry 
the  Eighth,’  v.  No.  112,  p.  50. 

f  For  this  important  document  see  Wilkins,  iii.  760,  and  Blunt’s 
‘Ecclesiastical  History,’  i.  250-253.  [Doubts  have  been  cast  upon  it, 
but  I  believe  the  statement  in  the  text  to  be  right. — W.  E.  G.,  1896.] 


172  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

the  king  and  people  be  withdrawn  from  the  See  of 
Rome,”  as  in  like  case  the  French  king  “  withdrew  his 
obedience  of  him  and  his  subjects  ”  from  Pope  Benedict 
XIII.  Accordingly  it  was  enacted  by  23  Henry  VIII. 
c.  20,  that  in  case  the  Pope  should  attempt  to  enforce 
such  payment  by  excommunication,  interdict,  or  other¬ 
wise,  the  proceeding  should  be  treated  as  null,  and  all 
divine  services  carried  on  in  the  usual  course. 

By  the  26  Henry  VIII.  c.  1,  passed  in  November, 
1534,  this  recognition  by  “the  clergy  in  their  convoca¬ 
tions  ”  is  recited  as  a  recognition  of  the  headship  without 
qualification  ;  and  although,  according  to  the  opening 
words  of  the  statute,  it  exists  already,  nevertheless, 
“  for  corroboration  and  confirmation  and  the  increase  of 
virtue,”  it  is  also  enacted.  And  this  act  was  at  once 
followed  by  26  Henry  VIII.  c.  13,  which  made  it  high 
treason  to  deprive  the  king,  queen,  or  heirs  apparent 
“  of  the  dignity,  title ,  or  name  of  their  royal  estates.” 

The  Act  declaring  the  headship  gave  no  power  to 
impose  an  oath.  But  such  a  power  had  been  given  by 
the  Act  of  Succession  (1533)  for  the  purposes  of  the 
Statute;  and  Henry,  by  an  act  of  will,  enlarged  the  oath 
so  as  to  include  the  supremacy  in  the  double  form  of 
the  royal  headship  and  the  exclusion  of  the  papal  juris¬ 
diction.  The  bishops  were  now  required  to  swear  to  it. 
Lingard  *  says  that,  though  with  different  motives, 
Sampson  and  Stokesley,  Tunstal  and  Gardiner  exerted 
themselves  to  promote  this  purpose ;  the  prelates  seem 
to  have  sworn  without  exception ;  and  the  Convocations 
had  already  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Pope 
“  had  not  any  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  him  by  God 


*  ‘  Hist.  Engl.’  iv.  215. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  173 

in  this  realm  of  England,  [more]  than  any  other  foreign 
bishop.”  Such  was  the  language  of  the  Canterbury 
Convocation  in  March,  1534.  That  of  York  passed  a 
declaration  in  somewhat  different  words,  but  apparently 
with  the  same  meaning.* 

III.  It  is  common  to  represent  the  antipapal  move¬ 
ment  under  Henry  VIII.  as  having  been  due  simply  to 
the  keen  desire  of  the  king  for  {.he  divorce.  If  any 
other  concurrent  causes  are  taken  into  view,  they  are 
the  cupidity  of  the  aristocracy,  the  indifferent  state  of 
the  monasteries,  which  had  led  Bishop  Fox,  in  founding 
his  college  of  Corpus  Christi,  to  take  into  view  the 
evident  approach  of  their  ruin,  and  the  existence  of  a 
latent  vein  of  Lollardism  in  the  country.  It  is  probably 
true  that,  but  for  the  divorce,  Henry  would  have  con¬ 
tinued  in  that  mood  of  warm  attachment  to  the  papacy, 
which  led  him  so  highly  to  exalt  its  prerogatives  in  his 
controversy  with  Luther,  as  to  draw  down  on  him  the 
warning  expostulation  of  Sir  Thomas  More.  Conse¬ 
quently  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  the  actual  evolution 
of  events,  the  King’s  resolution  to  obtain  the  divorce 
was  an  essential  factor,  and  it  may  have  been  with  him 
the  governing  cause.  But  it  is  surely  now  plain  that, 
among  the  instruments  ready  to  his  hand,  there  was  a 
widespread  aversion  of  the  clergy,  in  its  different  ranks, 
to  the  working  prerogatives  of  the  Roman  See,  which 
may  be  referred  in  part  to  impatience  of  taxation,  but 
which  obtained  even  with  some  of  its  highest,  purest, 
and  ablest  members,  and  which  probably  stands  in 
historical  continuity  with  much  earlier  manifestations 


*  Collier’s  ‘Hist.’  iv.  266. 


174  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OE  RELIGION. 

of  the  national  sentiment  both  in  Church  and  State, 
such  as  the  Statute  of  Provisors,  and  the  Constitutions 
of  Clarendon. 

The  tyrannical  threat  of  the  Praemunire  in  1530-1 
might  have  had  a  sufficient  motive  in  the  prodigality  of 
the  king,  which  required  to  be  fed  by  an  extravagant 
subsidy.  It  is  not  at  first  sight  so  plain  why  to  the 
grant  of  the  subsidy  should  have  been  tacked  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  headship.  There  was  no  osten¬ 
sible  plea  for  the  introduction  of  the  subject.  There 
was  not  a  single  reforming  bishop  on  the  bench.  The 
words  of  the  Goncessio  give  emphasis  to  the  theological 
performances  of  the  king,  which  had  been  markedly  in 
an  anti-reforming  sense.  There  was  not  the  smallest 
reference  made  to  the  approaching  exercise  in  the  super¬ 
lative  degree  of  the  papal  power  by  the  denunciation 
of  the  divorce  from  Rome.  Had  there  been  even  a 
savour  of  reference  to  this  subject,  the  opposition  of 
Fisher  would  probably  have  been  roused,  and  he  might 
have  been  supported  by  a  party.  Henry  committed  a 
gross  error  in  his  first  demand  for  the  acknowledgment, 
which  was  couched  in  terms  so  large  as  to  threaten  his 
plan  with  total  failure.  But  he  retreated  from  this 
false  position,  and,  in  accepting  with  crafty  forethought 
a  qualified  recognition,  he  contrived,  without  rousing 
prematurely  the  enemies  of  the  divorce,  to  strengthen 
his  own  hands  for  putting  them  down  at  the  proper 
season  by  making  what  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
an  effectual  provision  for  the  determination  of  the  cause 
within  the  realm.  Accordingly  we  find  that,  as  early  as  in 
February,  1530-1,  Chapuys  writes  to  Charles  V.  that  Anne 
and  her  father  have  principally  caused  the  movement.* 


*  Brewer’s  ‘Letters  and  Papers,’  112,  54. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OE  RELIGION.  175 

IV.  Such  was  the  position  of  the  question  between 
the  Church,  with  the  State,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  See 
of  Rome  on  the  other,  when  Mary  came  to  the  throne 
in  1553.  In  her  early  measures  for  the  restoration  of 
the  Roman  worship,  she  did  not  touch  the  supremacy.* 
At  a  later  period  the  Parliament  proceeded  to  repeal 
the  Acts  which  it  had  passed  under  Henry  the  Eighth 
against  the  See  of  Rome,  and  the  Statutes  of  Appeal, 
Submission,  and  Headship.  But  it  is  most  remarkable 
that,  although  the  actual  bishops  and  clergy  had, 
through  expulsions  and  burnings,  become  sufficiently 
conformable,  there  was  no  doctrinal  and  no  legislative 
action  of  the  Convocations.  No  attempt  was  made  to 
disturb  the  proceedings  of  1531  or  1 534, j*  while  the 
list  of  books  proscribed  does  not  contain  the  works  of 
TUnstal  and  Gardiner  against  the  papal  supremacy. 
It  is  possible  that  these  prelates  were  not  disposed  to 
assent  to  the  reversal  of  the  former  proceedings,  and 
there  may  also  have  been  a  jealousy  at  Rome,  adverse 
to  the  revival  of  anything  resembling  a  national  church 
government  by  the  practical  exercise  of  power. 

Postponing  the  general  recital  of  the  changes  made 
on  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  I  will  only  here  notice 
that  the  Queen  found  in  full  force,  as  ecclesiastical 
declarations  and  enactments,  the  synodical  acts  of  the 
reign  of  her  father.  All  that  was  wanting  to  give  them 
legal  effect  was  the  action  of  Parliament  in  the  removal 
of  impediments.  This  was  supplied  by  the  very  first 


*  Lingard,  vol.  v.  p.  33. 

f  As  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  Lower  House  outstripped  the 
Upper,  and  petitioned  the  Bishops  for  many  things,  among  them  the 
restoration  of  the  liberties  of  the  Church  as  they  were  in  1  Henry 
the  Eighth.  This  was  in  1554.  Wilkins,  iv.  96. 


176  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

statute  of  the  reign,  1  Eliz.  c.  1.  By  this  statute  the 
regal  supremacy  was  restored.  The  ideas  dominant  in 
it  are  the  renunciation  of  a  “  usurped  foreign  power ;  ”  * 
and  the  annexation  of  all  such  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual 
jurisdiction  as  “hath  heretofore  been  or  may  lawfully 
be  used”  to  “the  imperial  crown  of  this  realm.”  Or  as 
it  appears  in  the  preamble  or  first  section,  it  is  the 
“  restoring  and  reuniting  ”  to  the  crown  the  “  ancient 
jurisdictions”  “to  the  same  of  right  belonging  and 
appertaining ;  ”  and  the  title  of  the  Act  is  “  An  Act  to 
restore  to  the  crown  the  ancient  jurisdiction  over  the 
estate  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual,  and  abolishing  all 
foreign  powers  repugnant  to  the  same.”  The  Act 
provides  an  oath  to  be  administered  among  others  to 
bishops ;  and  this  oath  declares  the  sovereign  to  be  the 
only  supreme  governor  “as  well  in  all  spiritual  or 
ecclesiastical  things  or  causes,  as  temporal,”  and  utterly 
renounces  all  foreign  jurisdiction. 

It  might  have  been  supposed  that  the  episcopal  body 
and  the  members  of  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation, 
having  their  personal  composition  as  yet  unaltered, 
would  either  not  have  been  allowed  to  sit,  or  if  so 
allowed  would  have  bestirred  themselves  on  behalf  of 
the  Marian  legislation,  or  in  some  shape  of  the  papal 
power.  They  met,  however,  under  the  authority  of  a 
“brief”  from  the  Queen:  a  fact  which  of  itself  raises 
the  presumption,  that  Elizabeth  had  by  some  means 
assured  herself  that  their  action  would  be  kept  within 
due  bounds.  But  it  is  asserted  by  Lingard  that  they 
presented  a  petition  to  the  House  of  Lords  declaring 
among  other  things  belief  in  the  papal  supremacy.  On 

*  Secs,  i.,  ii.,  xvi.,  xix. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  177 

reference  to  the  records  we  find  that  the  allegation  is 
radically  erroneous.  The  facts  were  as  follows.*  On 
the  25th  of  February,  1559,  the  Prolocutor,  on  the  part 
of  the  Lower  House,  did  make  known  to  the  bishops 
certain  articles  which  that  House  had  framed  ‘  ‘  for  the 
exoneration  of  its  conscience  and  the  declaration  of  its 
faith.”  One  of  these  articles  declares  that  the  supreme 
power  of  governing  the  Church  belonged  to  the  succes¬ 
sors  of  Peter,  without  however  attacking  in  terms  the 
supremacy  of  the  Crown.  Another  claims  for  the  clergy 
the  right  to  discuss  and  define  in  matters  of  faith  and 
discipline.  The  articles  were  incorporated  in  an  address 
to  the  bishops  ;  and,  according  to  the  narrative  portion 
of  the  official  record,  they  asked  for  some  kind  of  co¬ 
operation  in  the  original  words,  ut  ipsi  episcopi  sibi  sint 
duces  in  liac  re.  But  the  document  itself  is  more  ex¬ 
plicit  ;  and  only  asks  that,  as  they  have  not  of  them¬ 
selves  access  to  the  Peers,  the  prelates  would  make 
known  the  articles  for  them.  On  a  later  day  they 
inquired  whether  this  had  been  done  (an  articuli  sui 
propositi  prsesentati  essent  superioribus  ordinibus).  Bonner, 
the  acting  president,  replied  that  he  had  placed  them 
before  the  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal,  as  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Lords ;  who  appeared  to  receive  them  kindly 
(gratanter) ,  but  made  no  reply  whateArer  ( nullum  omnino 
responsum  dedit).  The  prolocutor  and  clergy  renewed 
their  request,  but  the  Convocation  passed  on  to  the 
business  of  subsidy ;  and  nothing  further  happened  but 
that  the  concurrence  of  the  Universities  with  the  five 
articles  was  made  known  on  a  subsequent  day.  Thus  it 
is  plain  that,  while  the  lower  clergy  framed  a  document 


*  Wilkins’s  ‘Concilia,’  iv.  179. 


178  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

which,  if  a  little  ambiguous,  was  clearly  more  or  less 
hostile,  the  bishops  took  no  part.  It  is  not,  I  think, 
too  much  to  say  that  they  carefully  and  steadily 
avoided  taking  a  part.  There  were,  indeed,  but  four  of 
them  present.  In  the  Convocation  of  York  no  steps 
whatever  bearing  on  religion  were  adopted.  There 
never  was  in  either  province  so  much  as  a  question 
of  a  synodical  act  to  reverse,  or  even  modify,  the  formal 
and  valid  proceedings  taken,  with  general  consent,  in 
the  time  of  Henry. 

Y.  Before  any  steps  were  commenced  by  the  Queen, 
eleven  out  of  the  twenty-seven  bishops  of  the  two 
provinces  were  dead.  To  the  other  sixteen  the  oath 
was  legally  tendered,  which  asserted,  on  behalf  of  the 
Crown,  less  than  was  contained  in  the  unrepealed  and 
therefore  still  operative  declarations  of  the  Anglican 
Convocations.  One  only,  Kitchin,  Bishop  of  Llandaff 
(an  indifferent  subject),  took  it.  The  other  fifteen  were 
deprived.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  more  regular 
proceeding  :  they  were  put  out  of  their  sees  for  refusing 
to  conform  themselves  to  a  law  of  the  utmost  practical 
importance,  and  one  which  had  the  sanction  alike  of  the 
Anglican  Church  and  of  the  State. 

Out  of  these  fifteen,  five*  died  before  steps  were 
taken  for  the  appointment  of  their  successors.  Of  the 
remaining  ten,  Palmer  f  has  shown  that  either  eight  or 
nine  were  liable  canonically  to  expulsion  as  intruders 
under  the  auspices  of  Mary.  If,  he  says,  there  was 

*  Lingard,  v.  630,  note  G. 

t  ‘On  the  Church,’  i.  372;  and  J.  W.  Lea  on  ‘Spiritual  Juris¬ 
diction  at  the  Epochs  of  the  Reformation  and  Revolution  ’  (London  : 
Wells  Gardner). 


THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION.  1  I  (J 


irregularity  in  one  or  two  remaining  cases,  this  cannot 
impugn  the  proceedings  generally.  It  appears,  however, 
that,  if  the  foregoing  statement  be  correct,  although  the 
circumstances  were  exceptional  there  was  no  juridical 
irregularity  whatever.  The  sees  were  legitimately 
cleared  before  the  new  appointments  were  made.  The 
avoidance  was  effected  in  a  majority  of  instances  by 
death,  in  the  remaining  minority  of  cases  by  expulsion 
for  legal  cause,  with  all  the  authority  which  the  action 
of  the  National  Church  could  give  for  such  a  purpose. 
The  episcopal  succession  through  Parker  is  therefore 
unassailable  up  to  this  point,  that  it  did  not  displace 
any  legitimate  possessors,  or  claimants,  of  any  of  the 
Sees. 

This  is  of  course  upon  the  assumption  that,  in  recog¬ 
nising  the  supreme  governorship  of  the  Crown,  and  in 
denying  the  foreign  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  the  Church 
of  England  acted  within  her  rights  as  a  distinct  national 
Church.  It  is  not  for  me  to  enter  upon  the  question, 
properly  theological,  whether  the  Pope  had  a  jurisdiction 
which  neither  the  nation  nor  the  Church  had  power  to 
touch ;  or  whether  the  consecration  of  Parker  is  assail¬ 
able  on  this  or  on  any  other  ground. 

I  think,  however,  that  it  is  difficult  or  impossible 
to  deny  that  the  Anglican  bishops  and  clergy  under 
Henry  the  Eighth,  and  before  the  accession  of  Cranmer, 
the  divorce,  and  the  re-marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn, 
believed  themselves  entitled  to  deal  with  what  Palmer 
has  well  called  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope. 
It  may  be  that,  under  Mary,  the  conservative  party  in 
the  Church  had  narrowed  its  ground,  renounced  in  a 
measure  the  older  English  tradition,  and  made  a  rally 
round  the  papal  standard.  It  remains,  however,  a 


180  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT  OF  RELIGION. 

curious  question  why  they  did  not,  before  Elizabeth 
had  re-purged  the  Convocations  by  means  of  the  oath 
of  supremacy,  avail  themselves  of  their  legal  standing 
by  some  attempt  at  synodical  action  in  the  Roman 
sense  :  and  it  is  a  question  of  still  greater  interest  for 
what  reasons  no  such  action  was  taken  during  the 
Marian  period,  when  the  episcopate  and  priesthood  had 
been  effectually  purged,  and  the  nation  at  large  had 
been  acquiescent  in  the  restoration  of  the  Roman  form 
of  worship. 

Such  is  the  subject  which  I  have  endeavoured  to 
present  under  an  aspect  free  from  colour,  and  with  the 
dryness  which  properly  belongs  to  an  argument  upon 
law.  I  ought  perhaps  to  make  two  small  additions. 
First,  that  my  account  of  the  proceedings  in  the  first 
Elizabethan  Convocation,  although  brief,  contains  all 
that  is  material.  Secondly,  that  I  have  carefully 
perused  an  able  article  in  the  Dublin  Review  for  May, 
1840,  which  is  believed  to  have  been  written  by  Dr. 
Lingard,  and  bears  the  title  “Did  the  Anglican  Church 
reform  herself  ?  ”  It  covers  the  ground  of  the  argument 
advanced  in  these  pages ;  but  supplies  no  reason,  I 
believe,  for  altering  anything  that  I  have  written, 


Vi. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OE 

ENGLAND.* 

1888. 

Considerations  of  religion  were  the  chief  determining 
elements,  at  least  for  England,  in  the  public  affairs  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  Parallel  or  counter  to  these  ran 
the  motives  of  private  rapine,  European  influence,  and 
other  forces,  variously  distributed  in  various  countries ; 
but  religion  was  the  principal  factor.  And  yet  not 
religion  conceived  as  an  affair  of  the  private  conscience  : 
not  the  yearning  and  the  search  for  the  “  pearl  of  great 
price:”  not  an  increased  predominance  of  “other¬ 
worldliness  :  ”  but  the  instinct  of  national  freedom,  and 
the  determination  to  have  nothing  in  religion  that 
should  impair  it.  The  penetrating  insight  of  Shake¬ 
speare  taught  him,  in  delineating  King  John’s  defiance 
to  the  Pope,  to  base  it,  not  on  the  monarch’s  own  very 
indifferent'  individuality,  but  on  the  national  sentiment. 

“  Tell  him  this  tale  :  and  from  the  mouth  of  England 
Add  thus  much  more  ;  that  no  Italian  priest 
Shall  tithe  or  toll  in  our  dominions.”  f 


*  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
f  ‘  King  John,’  iii.  1. 


1 82  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

.tn  those  words  is  set  down  probably  the  most  powerful 
element  of  the  anti-Homan  movement  in  England  for 
the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  in  the  seventeenth  that 
the  forms  of  personal  religion  were,  for  the  bulk  of  the 
English  people,  principally  determined.* 

Henry  the  Eighth  did  not  create  this  hostility,  but 
turned  it  to  account ;  added  to  it  the  force  of  his  own 
imperious  and  powerful  will ;  and  supplied  a  new  ground 
of  action  upon  which  its  energies  could  be  mustered  and 
arrayed,  in  order  to  sustain  a  sound  or  plausible  appeal 
to  Scripture  against  papal  prerogative.  Henry  was,  in 
truth,  one  of  the  most  papally  minded  men  in  England. 
Sir  Thomas  More  warned  him  that  he  had  strained  the 
claims  of  the  see  of  Rome  in  his  book  against  Luther. 
But  the  atmosphere  of  his  soul,  like  the  bag  of  Aiolos, 
was  charged  with  violence  and  tempest,  and  the  stronger 
blast  prevailed.  Nothing,  Mr.  Brewer  seems  to  believe,! 
but  the  extravagance  of  his  passion  for  Ann  Boleyn 
could  have  overcome  the  propensity  next  in  vehemence, 
which  was  that  of  attachment  to  the  Pope.  In  any 
case,  the  King  showed  a  great  sagacity  in  the  adaptation 
of  his  means  to  his  ends.  He  never  questioned  the 
position  of  the  Pope  as  the  head  of  the  Western  Church, 
but  he  denied  that  this  headship  or  primacy  invested  him 
with  ordinary  jurisdiction  in  this  realm  of  England. 
And  this  great  practical  change,  which  effectually  re¬ 
moved  the  Pope  from  the  daily  view  of  the  English 
clergy  and  people,  was  effected  without  any  shock  to 
the  stability  of  the  throne,  and  even  carried  with  it  the 


*  On  this  not  yet  fully  explored  subject,  see  Weingarten,  ‘Kevolu- 
tions-Kirchen  Englands.’ 

f  ‘  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,’  iv.,  Introd.  p.  cxli. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  183 


general  assent  of  the  bishops  and  their  clergy.  At  no 
time,  says  Hume,*  was  he  hated  by  his  subjects,  and  the 
judgment  of  our  historians  from  the  date  of  Mr.  Hallam  | 
has  been  that  the  abolition  of  the  papal  jurisdiction 
corresponded,  on  the  whole,  with  the  bent  of  the  national 
mind. 

Elizabeth  was  reported  by  the  Count  de  Feria,  a  very 
competent  observer,  to  have  a  great  admiration  for  her 
father’s  mode  of  ruling.  Had  the  course  of  nature  been 
such  as  to  set  her  upon  the  throne  at  his  death,  and  had 
she  been  inclined  to  pursue  a  religious  policy  in  some 
essential  points  resembling  his,  she  would  probably  have 
been  more  largely  supported  by  the  people  than  were 
either  of  the  intervening  sovereigns  in  the  pursuit  of 
opposite  extremes.  But  the  reigns  both  of  Edward  and 
of  Mary  concurred  in  this  single  point — that  each  of 
them  powerfully  tended  to  develop  in  the  public  mind 
the  more  unmitigated  forms  of  the  two  beliefs  that  were 
in  conflict  throughout  Europe.  The  Marian  bishops 
occupied  a  ground  widely  apart  from  that  of  the  prelacy 
which  under  Warham  accepted,  and  even  enacted,  the 
royal  supremacy.  The  Protestant  divines,  with  whom 
Elizabeth  had  to  deal  on  her  accession,  were  for  the 
most  part  men  addicted  not  to  Luther,  not  even  to 


*  ‘  Hist.,’  ch.  xxxiii. 

t  ‘Constit.  History,’  i.  113  n.  Green’s  i  History,’  ii.  178,  219.  Mr. 
Gairdner  says  (‘Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,’  vol.  viii.,  Preface,  p.  11)  that 
the  nation  disliked  the  change.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  would 
speak  thus  of  that  portion  only  of  the  change  which  abolished  the 
ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope.  The  divorce,  the  modes  of  proceed¬ 
ing  with  the  monasteries,  the  cruel  executions,  and  finally  the  despotic 
government  of  the  Church,  are  separable  from  those  measures  of  the 
reign  which  seem  to  have  carried  national  approval. 

J  Fronde’s  ‘  Hist.,’  vi.  525. 


184  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

Calvin,  but  more  to  Zwingli.  An  independent  ortho¬ 
dox  Anglicanism,  as  Mr.  Froude  has  happily  phrased  it, 
which  was  once  a  reality,  had  become  almost  a  dream. 
At  the  moment  of  Mary’s  death,  though  large  masses  of 
the  population  were  without  decided  leanings,  the  active 
religion  of  the  country  was  divided  between  purely 
Homan  and  strongly  puritan  opinions.  Even  Tunstal 
had  been  converted  to  at  least  an  acquiescence  in  the 
papal  supremacy.  As  papist  or  as  Zwinglian,  the  great 
Queen  would  at  least  have  had  a  strong  party  at  her 
back.  To  the  one  and  to  the  other  she  was  inflexibly 
opposed.  If  she  was  resolved  to  make  bricks  after  her 
own  fashion,  she  had  to  make  them  without  straw.  For 
the  purposes  of  religion,  she  had  no  party  at  her  back. 
But  she  knew  that  sovereignty  in  England  was  a  strong 
reality,  and  that  the  will  of  every  Tudor  had  counted 
for  much  in  the  determination  of  national  policy.  She 
knew,  she  could  not  but  know,  that  in  strength  of  voli¬ 
tion  she  was  at  least  their  equal,  and  that  in  the 
endowments  of  her  intellect,  as  well  as  through  the 
preparatory  discipline  of  her  life,  she  excelled  them  all. 
In  no  portion  of  her  proceedings  did  she  more  clearly 
exhibit  sagacious  discernment  and  relentless  energy  of 
purpose  than  in  her  cautious  but  never  wearying  effort 
to  manipulate  the  religion  of  the  country  in  a  sense 
which  should  be  national,  but  should  not  be  that  either 
of  the  Zwinglian  or  Calvinian  exiles,  or  of  the  Homan 
.  court.  She  told  the  Spanish  ambassador  on  her  acces¬ 
sion,  says  Strype,  that  she  acknowledged  the  Heal 
Presence,  and  “did  now  and  then  pray  to  the  Virgin 
Mary.”  * 


*  Strype’s  ‘  Annals,’  vol.  i.  part  1,  p.  3. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  185 


Like  her  sister,  she  made  it  her  primary  object  to  act 
upon  the  form  of  public  worship.  And  her  first  effort 
appears  to  have  assumed  the  shape  of  an  inquiry 
whether  the  Prayer  Book  of  1549  could  be  assumed  as 
the  basis  of  the  new  legislation,  or  whether  she  must 
take  that  of  1552  for  her  point  of  departure.  As  the 
Book  of  1552  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  come  into 
extensive  use  in  the  short  period  of  its  legal  existence 
before  the  death  of  the  young  King,  it  is  probable  that 
the  measure  she  preferred  would,  had  it  been  practically 
available  at  the  moment,  have  been  the  safest  for  the 
country  at  large.*  Questions  were  apparently  submitted, 
through  Cecil,  to  the  divines  that  had  in  charge  the 
preparation  of  a  reformed  Common  Prayer  Book,  which 
proposed  for  consideration  the  retention  of  the  cere¬ 
monies  of  1549,  and  the  virtual  resumption  of  the  Book 
of  that  year.f  The  reply  of  Geste  (or  Guest),  who  was 
among  the  more  moderate  of  these  divines  (in  the 
absence  of  Parker  through  sickness),  was  unfavourable 
on  all  the  points,  and  even  proposed  to  leave  open  the 
posture  for  reception  of  the  elements.^  The  second 
Book  of  Edward  the  Sixth  was  accordingly  assumed  as 
a  basis  :  with  changes,  however,  which  served  to  indicate 
the  inner  sense  of  the  Queen.  They  were  carefully 
limited  in  number,  but  were  chosen  with  extreme  skill, 
in  consonance  with  the  ideas  of  the  Queen,  the  Secre¬ 
tary,  and  (probably)  the  Archbishop  to  be.  The  old 

*  On  the  state  of  religious  opinion  in  the  country,  and  on  the  action 
of  the  clergy  respecting  the  Elizabethan  settlement,  see  the  ingenious 
argument  of  Mr.  S.  F.  Smith,  S.J.,  in  ‘The  Alleged  Antiquity  of 
Anglicanism,’  pp.  61-67. 

f  Dugdale’s  4  Life  of  Bishop  Geste,’  p.  38;  Collier’s  4  History,’  vi. 
249;  Hook’s  ‘Archbishops  of  Canterbury,’  ix.  175. 

X  ‘Annals,’  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  459,  seqq. 


186  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

words  of  delivery  in  the  Holy  Communion  were  prefixed 
to  the  new  ;  and  the  rubric  of  1552,  which  denied  the 
“  real  and  essential  ”  presence,  was  omitted.  Another 
rubric  was  framed  for  the  retention  of  the  priestly  vest¬ 
ments  such  as  they  had  been  before  the  first  Book  of 
Edward  the  Sixth.  And,  while  the  Communion  Office 
was  to  be  read  at  “  the  Table  ”  in  the  “  accustomed 
place  ”  of  the  church  or  chancel,  where  the  daily  prayers 
were  appointed  to  be  read,  yet  power  was  given  to  the 
ordinary  to  vary  it,  and  the  chancels  were  to  remain 
as  in  time  past.  Now  the  altars,  displaced  wholly  or 
partially  under  Edward,  had  been  replaced  under  Mary. 
And  thus  they  were  to  continue,  but  with  a  discretion 
which,  if  ambiguously  expressed,  was  meant  without 
doubt  to  meet  the  diversified  exigencies  of  the  time. 
And  the  clause  in  the  Litany,  which  prayed  for  “  deliver¬ 
ance  from  the  Bishop  of  Borne  and  from  all  his  detest¬ 
able  *  enormities  ”  was  cancelled. 

Singular  as  it  may  seem,  there  is  every  presumption 
that  the  important  stroke  of  policy  involved  in  these 
changes  was  due,  not  to  clerical,  but  to  royal  and  indi¬ 
vidual  influences.  The  answers  of  Guest,  to  which  I 
have  referred,  indicate  no  leaning  to  any  of  them,  but 
recommend  a  further  development  of  the  second  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  in  the  direction  of  Puritanism,  by  a 
legalised  option  to  stand  at  the  Holy  Communion  in  the 
act  of  reception.  Had  the  divines  had  their  way,  there 
might  at  once  have  been  a  conflict  with  the  whole 
Boman  Catholic  party,  a  crisis  in  the  foreign  policy  of 
the  country,  possibly  a  war  both  civil  and  foreign. 
Apart  from  any  ritualistic  and  theological  leanings  of 


*  In  the  reign  of  Henry  the  epithet  was  “abominable.” 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  187 

the  Queen,  she  did  what  the  national  safety  and  unity 
evidently  required.  The  spirit  of  nationalism,  generally 
dominant  under  Henry  the  Eighth,  had  given  way  first 
in  one  direction  under  Edward  the  Sixth,  apparently 
without  reserves,  then  in  the  other  direction  with  some 
reserves,  to  polemical  interests  and  passions.  In  her 
it  found  a  restorer  and  a  champion.  Elizabeth  admitted 
the  Protestant  claim  in.  the  gross,  but  admitted  it  with 
serious  discounts.  Yet  those  discounts  were  adjusted 
with  extraordinary  skill. 

Every  one  of  the  new  changes  was  an  important  con¬ 
cession  to  the  Roman  Catholic  party ;  and  such  on  this 
side  was  the  effect,  that  the  mass  of  them  conformed,  and 
only  a  sprinkling  of  individuals  or  families  kept  up  in 
secrecy,  and  with  no  ostentation,  if  with  more  or  less  of 
connivance  from  the  Government,  the  Roman  rite. 

On  the  other  side  of  the  account,  there  was  to  be 
reckoned,  first,  that  the  Book,  except  in  a  score  of  lines, 
was  the  Book  of  1552.  Nor  was  every  concession  to  the 
Roman  party  a  blow  to  the  Puritans.  No  one  could 
seriously  contend  for  the  irreverent  and  scurrilous  peti¬ 
tion  dropped  out  of  the  reformed  Litany.  The  restored 
words  of  delivery  in  the  Communion  Office  did  not  ope¬ 
rate  as  a  test ;  for  it  was  only  by  implication  that  they 
clashed  with  the  Zwinglian  theory.  The  only  change 
which  was  as  gall  and  wormwood  to  the  Puritans  was 
the  introduction  of  what  is  now  known  as  the  Ornaments 
Rubric.  This  was  indeed  a  daring  measure  in  the  face 
of  the  reforming  divines,  who  had  witnessed  only  six 
years  before  the  legislative  prohibition  of  alb,  vestment, 
and  cope  in  the  prefatory  rubric  to  the  Order  for  daily 
prayer.  It  was  probably  meant  for  the  rural  districts, 
where  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  it  would  at  the 


188  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND* 

time  be  popular.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  evidence  to 
show  that  it  ever  was  enforced  against  unwilling  clergy¬ 
men,  or  that  it  supplied  a  prominent  topic  for  the  con¬ 
troversies  of  the  day.  In  the  matter  of  clerical  habits, 
these  disputes  turned  mainly  on  the  use  of  the  surplice. 
It  was  as  much  as  the  Queen  and  Government  could  do 
to  hold  this  narrower  ground  with  success,  against  the 
determined  opposition  of  the  Puritans  in  mass,  and  the 
leanings  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  bishops.  But  they 
did  hold  it :  and  the  experience  of  the  Cromwellian  and 
Restoration  periods  shows  that  they  rightly  gauged  the 
ultimate  and  fundamental  tendencies  of  the  nation, 
which  did  not  favour  a  naked  Protestantism.  They 
suffered  the  Ornaments  Rubric  to  lie  partially  dormant, 
but  they  kept  it  in  force,  and  they  sternly  resisted  all 
attempts  to  alter  the  Prayer  Book  in  the  sense  of  the 
Swiss  Reformation.  Even  before  the  Deposing  Bull 
and  the  consequent  breach  with  the  Roman  party,  these 
attempts  became  serious  ;  and  in  1566  a  bill  “to  temper 
the  whole  to  the  Puritan  gust  ”  had  been  read  a  third 
time  in  the  House  of  Commons,  when  Elizabeth  ordered 
it  to  be  sent  to  her,  and  the  order  was  obeyed.  She 
further  commanded  that  no  such  bill  should  thereafter 
be  brought  in  till  it  had  been  examined  and  approved 
by  the  clergy.*  In  this  injunction  there  was  no  small 
astuteness.  For  the  clergy  in  convocation  could  not 
examine  or  approve  without  the  license  of  the  Queen 
previously  had. 

The  resistance  to  the  surplice  was  not,  however, 
wholly  without  effect  on  the  proceedings  of  authority. 
By  the  Advertisements  of  1566,  it  was  declared  to  be 


*  Collier,  vi.  514. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  189 

sufficient,  and  the  more  elaborate  vestments  were  thus 
far  set  aside.  But  the  Queen  could  not  be  induced  to 
give  her  sanction,  and  with  it  the  force  of  law,  to  these 
Advertisements,*  which  went  too  far  for  her,  and  not 
far  enough  for  the  party  of  the  Puritans  either  in  her 
council  or  in  the  country.  She  merely  connived  at 
them ;  and  according  to  Strype  j  they  produced  at  the 
time  no  conspicuous  effect.  They  did  not  conciliate 
the  Puritans  ;  but  they  probably  accelerated  the  disuse 
of  the  Ornaments  Rubric  as  a  whole. 

In  the  preparation  of  the  Elizabethan  Prayer  Book, 
more  scanty  regard  appears  to  have  been  paid  to 
ecclesiastical  authority  than  in  the  original  introduction 
of  the  Book  under  Edward  the  Sixth.  The  small  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Divines,  made  small  no  doubt  in  order  that 
it  might  not  be  formidable,  but  appointed  in  order  to 
observe  a  kind  of  decency,  was  invested  with  no  public 
authority,  and  (almost  of  necessity)  had  not  the  presence 
or  the  countenance  of  a  single  bishop.  It  seems  impossible 
to  doubt  that,  without  autocratic  dealing  in  this  affair,  the 
Queen  would  have  been  unable  to  secure  the  concessions 
to  Catholic  sentiment  which  she  knew  to  be  necessary, 
and  which  she  rightly  judged  that  the  Protestant  leaders 
among  the  clergy  would  not  at  the  time  have  adopted. 
That  she  was  not  governed  by  a  disposition  to  withhold 
from  the  spiritualty  its  fair  share  of  influence  and  power, 
we  shall  presently  see. 

In  this  portion  of  her  work  the  Queen  obtained  a 
substantial  though  not  a  complete  success.  She  gave 
tolerable  satisfaction  at  the  time,  as  is  evident,  to 
that  large  number  of  her  subjects  who  saw  that  the 


*  Strype’s  ‘Parker,’  i.  317.  f  Strype’s/ Annals,’  I.  ii .  130, 


190  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

independence  of  the  nation  was  safe  in  her  hands,  and 
who  were  not  given  to  religious  extremes.  She  adjourned 
her  quarrel  with  the  two  organised  parties  which  were 
actively  polemical,  until  an  epoch  when  her  position  was 
consolidated  and  she  had  strength  sufficient  to  encounter 
each  of  them  in  turn.  It  was  beyond  her  power  to 
bring  about  a  reconciliation  between  them,  or  even  to 
prevent  the  struggle  of  the  opposing  elements  within  the 
Church  itself  from  eventually  arriving  at  a  crisis,  two 
generations  later  in  our  history.  But  the  conclusive 
issue  of  that  crisis  in  1661  clearly  showed  that,  so  far  as 
public  worship  was  concerned,  and  altogether  apart  from 
any  religious  question  on  the  merits,  she  estimated  more 
correctly  than  either  of  the  dissatisfied  sections  the  sense 
and  tendencies  of  the  nation. 

In  relation  to  that  exterior,  but  practically  most 
important,  department  of  a  national  establishment  of 
religion,  the  Elizabethan  policy  was  summed  up  in  the 
sagacious  choice  of  a  position,  and  a  determined  con¬ 
servatism  in  defending  it  against  the  mutually  inimical 
but  co-operating  hosts  by  which  it  was  attacked. 

W e  have  presently  to  turn  from  the  popular  side  of  the 
Church  system  and  to  consider  it  in  another  aspect.  But 
before  passing  to  the  conduct  of  the  Queen  with  respect 
to  its  constitutional  and  juridical  side,  it  may  be  right 
to  observe  that,  although  she  followed  former  practice 
in  the  provisional  suppression  of  preaching  by  the  civil 
authority,  her  regard  for  law  was  decorous  in  comparison 
with  that  of  her  sister  Mary,  who  not  only  punished 
bishops  and  clergymen  by  deprivation  under  her  com¬ 
mission  for  marriages  which  were  authorised  by  statute 
and  which  had  never  been  invalidated,  but  actually 
committed  to  prison  Sir  James  Hales,  a  judge  of  the 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  191 

land,  who  had  distinguished  himself  by  his  loyalty,  for 
informing  the  people  in  a  charge  from  the  bench  that  it 
was  their  duty  to  conform  to  the  statutes  enacted  by 
Henry  the  Eighth  and  Edward  the  Sixth,  and  still  in 
force.* 

In  one  point  of  view,  indeed,  Elizabeth  was  but  a 
stepmother  to  the  National  Church.  It  was  thirteen 
months  after  her  accession  before  there  was  in  England 
a  single  prelate,  except  Kitchin  only,  prepared  to  con¬ 
form  to  the  law  of  the  Church  respecting  the  supremacy, 
such  as  it  had  been  unanimously  declared  by  the 
Convocation  of  1531,  and  such  as  it  still  remained 
under  that  declaration.  For  nearly  six  of  these  months 
she  had  no  power  by  statute  to  proceed  against  the 
actual  occupants  of  the  sees.  When  that  power  had 
been  secured,  the  deprivations  were  speedily  effected. 
Many  sees  had  been  previously  vacated  by  death,  and 
during  the  remainder  of  the  time  the  Crown  enjoyed  the 
revenues  of  them  all.  A  system  of  exchanges  of  pro¬ 
perty  was  now  set  in  motion,  by  which  they  were  heavily 
impoverished  ;  and  Collier  is  reproved  by  Burnet  for 
saying  that,  while  Mary  made  martyrs  in  the  Church, 
Elizabeth  made  beggars.j'  Mary  had  actually  remitted 
a  tax,  due  but  not  levied,  on  her  accession ;  and  had 
procured  the  importation  of  no  less  than  four  hundred 
thousand  pounds  in  cash,  to  sweeten,  some  say  by  direct 
bribery,  the  advent  of  her  husband  Philip.  She  had 
also  done  what  little  in  her  lay  to  repair  by  voluntary 
foundations  the  ruin  of  the  ancient  monasteries.  I  now 
return  to  the  main  question. 

*  Collier,  Vi.  35. 

f  Burnet,  part  iii.,  pref.  p.  3;  Collier,  ix.  438. 


192  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

On  the  legal,  political,  and  exoteric  side  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  policy,  the  transactions  of  the  Queen’s  reign 
were  a  series  of  efforts  at  reconstruction  both  positive 
and  negative.  Negative,  in  her  resistance  to  revolu¬ 
tionary  change ;  and  positive,  in  providing  against  a 
recurrence  of  the  system  of  governing  the  Church  by 
the  direct  agency  of  the  State,  which  under  Henry  the 
Eighth  had  been  largely  established  through  the  vicariate 
of  Cromwell,  and  which  had  been  developed  under 
Edward  the  Sixth,  through  the  council  of  State,  to  such 
a  degree,  that  the  Church  of  the  country  either  was  or 
would  soon  have  become  simply  a  department  of  the 
Executive.  The  country  at  large  did  not  wish  to  see 
the  Bishops,  as  Cranmer  largely  helped  to  make  them, 
reduced  to  being  the  holders  of  a  merely  deputed  and 
revocable  power ;  and  still  less  could  it  observe  with 
satisfaction  that  the  chairs  of  religious  learning  were 
occupied  by  foreign  divines,  as  though  England  laboured 
under  the  incapacities  of  a  spiritual  minority. 

The  Bill  to  re-establish  the  Royal  Supremacy  was 
introduced  when  Elizabeth  had  been  only  for  four 
months  on  the  throne ;  and  in  the  framing  of  this  Bill 
all  the  foundation-stones  were  firmly  laid  for  the  legal 
re-establishment  of  the  National  Church,  under  con¬ 
ditions  which  secured  the  just  control  of  the  State,  but 
which  likewise  restored  to  it,  in  its  own  sphere,  a  reason¬ 
able  liberty  of  action.  Elizabeth  probably  gave  effect 
in  this  matter  to  her  religious  convictions  ;  but  can  it 
be  doubted  that  she  also  perceived  how  a  policy  like 
that  of  her  brother’s  reign  would  have  made  the  Church 
not  indeed  tolerant,  but  yet  contemptible,  and  even 
incapable  of  contributing  as  a  great  factor  in  the  body 
politic  to  the  strength  of  the  State,  the  loyalty  of 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  193 

the  people,  and  the  Imperial  independence  of  the 
Crown  ? 

In  one  of  the  important  changes  made  in  this  Act, 
she  was  enabled  to  play  into  the  hands  of  both  parties 
at  once.  The  title  of  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church, 
enacted  by  Parliament  in  1534  without  the  qualifying 
clause  of  1531,  and  borne  by  Mary  until  the  time  of 
her  second  Parliament,  was  dropped  from  the  new 
Bill.  Mr.  Froude  has  shown,  from  the  correspondence 
with  the  Spanish  Government,  how  offensive  was  this 
title  on  the  Roman  side.  But  all  those  Protestants 
who  had  any  worthier  conception  of  the  Church  than 
as  a  mere  emanation  from  the  Crown,  viewed  it  as  an 
encroachment  on  the  prerogatives  of  the  Saviour,  whose 
“  alone  Headship”  has  been  so  manfully  asserted  in 
Scotland.  It  ceased  to  be  a  legal  title.  And  yet  the 
ghost  of  it  did  not  cease  to  haunt  the  secular  mind  ;  so 
that  a  Parliament  of  Anne,  in  the  preamble  to  an  Act, 
idly  and  untruly  recited  that  the  Queen  was  the  head 
of  the  Church  of  England  A  Elizabeth  went  even 
farther  than  the  renouncement  of  this  title.  In  the 
language  of  the  unanimous  Convocation  of  1531,  the 
monarch  was  also  the  unicus  ac  suprcmus  dominus,  the 
only  and  supreme  lord  of  the  Church.  And  while 
scruple  arose  upon  the  supremum  caput ,  about  these 
words  there  was  no  controversy  at  all.  The  only  title 
adopted  by  Elizabeth  is  that  embodied  in  her  oath  of 
supremacy,  which  declared  her  to  be  the  “  only  supreme 
governor  of  this  realm  ...  as  well  in  all  spiritual  or 
ecclesiastical  things  or  causes  as  temporal.”  t 

*  I  understand  that  the  same  legend  (tor  it  is  no  better)  appeared 
on  one  of  the  Great  Seals  of  the  reign  of  George  the  Third. 

f  1  Eliz.  c.  22,  sec.  vii. 

I. 


O 


194  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

While  extravagant  claims  were  thus  abated,  and  the 
more  modest  phrases  put  in  legal  use,  the  necessary 
substance  of  power  was  retained.  The  general  words 
for  the  annexation  of  jurisdiction  to  the  Crown,  in 
section  vi.  of  the  Act,  are  substantially  the  same  as  in 
the  Act  of  1534.  But  a  different  turn  is  given  to  it  by 
the  oath,  which  touches  only  judicial  proceedings,  and 
by  the  title  of  the  Act,  which,  as  well  as  the  Preamble, 
stamps  upon  it  a  conservative  character.  It  is  “  an  Act 
to  restore  the  ancient  jurisdiction”  and  to  abolish  “all 
foreign  power  repugnant  to  the  same  ;  ”  and  the  Pre¬ 
amble  expounds  the  title  exclusively  in  one  sense,  that 
of  its  relieving  the  subject  from  a  foreign  oppression. 

In  order  to  bring  fully  into  view  the  nature  of  this 
change,  it  is  needful  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  regal 
headship  had  in  truth  two  main  aspects  :  in  one,  it  was 
a  defence  against  the  papal  jurisdiction  ;  in  the  other, 
it  was  an  assertion  of  absolute  power  over  the  National 
Church.  In  the  first  of  these  senses  it  had  been  accepted 
and  enacted  by  the  clergy  in  1531  ;  and  Tunstal  was 
the  only  one  among  the  bishops,  who  appears  to  have 
been  at  that  time  seriously  disquieted  by  the  appre¬ 
hension  that  it  might  become  the  instrument  of  a 
spiritual  usurpation.  Yet  he  had  already  taken  the 
field  as  an  independent  champion  of  the  National  Church 
in  his  work  against  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope.  It 
was  when  Henry’s  absolutism  began  to  be  developed, 
mainly  through  the  agency  of  Cromwell,  that  it  was 
seen  how  the  royal  headship  was  available  for  pur¬ 
poses  of  oppression,  as  it  was  confined  and  limited  by 
none  of  the  known  lines  of  law.  Warham  was  the  next 
to  indicate,  by  his  protestation  on  behalf  of  the  Pope, 
his  apprehension  on  this  score  ;  and  Fisher,  three  years 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OB’  ENGLAND.  195 

after,  witnessed  to  it  with  his  blood.  At  a  later  period, 
it  drove  Tunstal  and  Gardiner,  with  others,  apparently 
to  recede  from  the  ground  they  had  previously  taken  on 
behalf  of  the  Crown.  Elizabeth  therefore  declared  by 
her  legislation  that  she  desired  to  govern  within  the 
limits  of  legal  precedent,  although  in  the  beginning  of 
her  reign  she  had  at  least  on  one  occasion  claimed  an 
absolute  sovereignty  alike  in  the  civil  and  in  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  spheres. 

There  were  other  manifestations  of  this  legal  intention 
in  the  Act  of  Supremacy.  But,  in  order  to  apprehend 
them  clearly,  it  is  requisite  to  go  back  to  an  important 
statute  of  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth. 

The  Act  of  1532-3  *  for  the  Restraint  of  Appeals  is 
introduced  by  a  Preamble  which,  though  it  does  not 
make  the  law,  declares  the  sense  of  the  legislator  and 
forms  a  great  historic  landmark.  The  leading  points 
of  this  Preamble  are  as  follows  : 

1.  The  realm  of  England  is  an  Empire,  governed  by 
“one  supreme  head  and  King.” 

2.  To  this  King  “  a  body  politick,”  divided  in  terms 
and  by  names  of  spiritualty  and  temporalty,  is  bound 
to  bear  “  a  natural  and  humble  obedience.” 

3.  This  King  is  duly  furnished  by  God  to  render  final 
justice  to  “  all  manner  of  folk  ”  within  his  realm,  without 
appeal  to  any  foreign  prince  or  potentate. 

4.  The  spiritualty,  or  English  Church,  “  always  hath 
been  reputed”  and  also  found  “sufficient  and  meet  of 
itself,”  without  any  “intermeddling  from  abroad,”  “to 
declare,  interpret,  and  show”  “any  cause  of  the  law 
divine.” 


*  24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12. 


196  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

5.  The  laws  temporal  have  in  like  manner  been 
administered  by  the  temporalty. 

6.  And  both  these  authorities  and  jurisdictions 
co-operate  together. 

In  this  Preamble,  if  anywhere,  we  may  be  said  to 
have  a  specimen  of  scientific  politics.  It  closes  a  multi¬ 
tude  of  questions.  The  kingdom  is  independent.  The 
king  is  unlimited  in  all  causes  which  arise.  He  works 
through  counsellors.  The  counsellors  are  ecclesiastical 
for  Church  purposes,  and  temporal  for  civil  purposes. 
There  are  two  jurisdictions,  separate  but  co-operative. 
And  the  old  controversy  of  appeals  to  Rome,  which  had 
raged  from  before  the  time  of  Stephen,  is  finally  decided 
in  the  sense  of  the  independence  of  the  realm. 

This  Preamble  strikes  a  death-blow,  not  at  the  office 
of  the  Pope  as  primate  or  patriarch  in  the  corporate 
action  of  the  Church  universal,  but  at  what  Palmer 
terms  his  ordinary  jurisdiction.  It  seems  as  if  it  had 
been  framed  to  reassure  those  who,  like  Tunstal,  were 
alarmed  for  the  autonomy,  under  the  king,  of  the  local 
Church.  It  was  framed  in  the  year  following  that  pre¬ 
late’s  remarkable  protest  in  the  Convocation  of  York, 
and  appears  as  if  it  were  intended  to  meet  the  claims 
of  that  protest.  It  seems  not  too  much  to  assume  that 
this  Preamble  secured  the  adhesion  of  the  prelates  and 
clergy  to  the  organic  change  effected  by  the  extinction 
of  the  foreign  jurisdiction,  and  even  obtained  their 
acquiescence  in  some  measures  which  did  not  corre¬ 
spond  with  the  spirit  of  the  great  Preamble  itself.  For 
these  measures  they  had  not  long  to  wait.  In  1533  * 
was  enacted  an  appeal  to  the  King  “in  the  Court  of 


*  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  107 

Chancery,”  and  each  cause  was  to  be  decided  by  a  commis¬ 
sion  issued  ad  hoc ;  a  derogation  from  the  important  prin¬ 
ciple  that  divine  causes  and  temporal  affairs  were  to  be 
governed  by  distinct  organs,  though  it  may  be  allowed 
that  the  provision  for  a  separate  commission  appointed 
for  judicial  purposes,  was  in  the  spirit  of  the  Preamble. 
But  in  executive  matters  no  fit  provision  was  made 
for  applying  it,  and  down  to  the  year  1553  the  Preamble 
passed  more  and  more  into  practical  oblivion. 

Under  the  Elizabethan  Act  of  Uniformity,  the  two 
statutes  to  which  reference  has  just  been  made  were 
revived,*  and  the  Preamble  accordingly  resumed  its 
proper  place  as  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  The  foreign 
jurisdiction  was  abolished,  and  the  jurisdiction  eccle¬ 
siastical  and  spiritual,  but  only  such  as  had  heretofore 
been  or  might  lawfully  be  used,  was  re-annexed  to  the 
Crown,  f  But  the  Act  proceeds  by  the  next  section  to 
provide,  in  exact  conformity  with  the  great  Preamble, 
that  the  Queen  may  appoint  such  person  or  persons, 
being  natural -born  subjects,  as  she  shall  think  fit  to 
exercise  the  whole  of  the  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  on  her  behalf.  This  is  a  proceeding  analo¬ 
gous  to  the  creation  of  a  court  of  civil  judicature  for 
civil  purposes ;  and  thus  arose  the  Court  of  High  Com¬ 
mission.  J  The  proceedings  of  this  court  were  marked 
by  the  spirit  of  absolutism  and  of  harshness,  which 
belonged  to  the  time  :  it  centralised  in  the  metropolis 
a  portion  of  the  business  that  should  have  been  locally 


*  1  Eliz.  1,  secs,  iv.,  vi.  f  Ibid .,  secs,  xvi.,  xvii. 

$  See  on  this  Court,  Stephen’s  ‘Notes  Eccl.  Statutes,’  i.  357  ;  and 
Gibson’s  ‘Codex,’  i.  44-50.  There  is  a  different  numbering  of  the 
sections  in  the  ‘Statutes  at  Large.’ 


198  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

disposed  of,  and  it  trespassed  in  all  directions  on  com¬ 
peting  jurisdictions.  It  was  not  therefore  an  engine 
of  tolerance ;  nor  were  any  of  the  measures  of  this  reign 
steps  in  the  direction  of  civil  or  religious  freedom  for 
individuals.  The  sore  places  of  the  body  politic  were  at 
the  time  not  civil  but  ecclesiastical,  and  with  these  sore 
places  the  court  had  to  deal.  It  fell  therefore  into 
odium,  and  was  justly  abolished  by  16  Car.  I.  c.  11. 
But  it  was  very  remarkable  as  a  conservative  attempt, 
made  by  the  Queen  to  save  the  religious  concerns  of 
the  country  from  becoming  the  prey,  as  they  had  formerly 
been,  of  its  Cromwells,  its  Somersets,  and  its  Northumber- 
lands.  It  was  judicial,  not  executive ;  and,  so  far  as  the 
Act  went,  it  provided  for  the  exercise  of  the  Supremacy 
only  in  the  judicial  sphere.  It  was  an  attempt,  made 
apparently  in  good  faith,  to  place  these  affairs  under 
the  control  of  qualified  persons,  in  conformity  with  the 
declarations  of  the  great  Preamble ;  and  in  this  sense  it 
appears  to  be  praiseworthy,  and  to  have  been  successful. 
A  main  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  Act,  according  to  the 
language  of  the  repealing  Act,  was  its  assumption  of 
the  temporal  powers  of  fine  and  imprisonment. 

In  the  enactment,  under  which  this  Court  was 
appointed,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  view  to  dealing 
with  the  Marian  bishops,  as  to  whom  it  must,  by  the 
month  of  April  (1559),  have  become  certain  that  they 
would  not  consent  to  abolish  the  foreign  jurisdiction. 
Queen  Mary  appears  to  have  appointed  a  commission 
for  deposing  the  Edwardian  prelates  by  virtue  only  of 
the  royal  supremacy.  But  Elizabeth  proceeded  in  the 
whole  of  this  matter  with  a  strict  regard  to  legality. 
The  full  authority  of  the  State  was  obtained  to  tender 
the  oath,  and  to  deprive  (sec.  xx.)  for  refusal ;  while 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  199 

the  oath  itself  was  founded  on,  and  lay  within,  the 
terms  of  the  Act  of  Convocation  in  1531,  which  had 
never  been  annulled. 

The  ecclesiastical  moderation  of  the  Queen  seems 
further  to  have  been  shown  in  the  precautions  taken  by 
the  Act  against  the  erection  of  new  forms  of  heresy,  a 
danger  more  than  usually  formidable  from  the  vehemence 
of  religious  controversy  at  the  time,  and  from  the  strong 
temptation  to  imitate  with  a  tu  quoque  the  proceedings 
of  the  papal  see.  By  a  remarkable  provision  of  the  Act 
(sec.  xxxv.),  no  matter  could  be  adjudged  by  any  com¬ 
mission  under  the  Act  to  be  heresy,  unless  either — - 

1.  It  had  been  so  adjudged  already  by  Scripture,  or 
any  of  the  four  first  general  councils,  or  by  some  other 
such  council  in  the  words  of  Scripture ;  or — • 

2.  It  should  be  so  adjudged  by  Parliament,  the  clergy 
in  Convocation  assenting. 

Since  the  power  to  appoint  these  commissions  now  no. 
longer  exists,  the  enactment  touching  heresy  is  without 
legal  force,  but  it  is  remarkable  as  a  feature  of  the 
Elizabethan  system  ;  and  the  condition  which  it  estab¬ 
lished  for  securing  the  joint  assent  of  Parliament  and 
Convocation  before  private  liberty  could  be  restrained 
by  any  new  sentence  of  heresy  was  in  force,  and  was 
probably  of  great  and  beneficial  effect,  for  more  than 
eighty  years. 

Queen  Elizabeth  also  restored  the  action  of  the 
spiritualty,  subject  to  regal  control,  in  the  important 
matter  of  episcopal  elections.  By  31  Hen.  VIII.  c.  9, 
and  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  2,  bishops  might  be  appointed  by 
letters  patent.  Under  Mary  (1  &  2  P.  and  M.  c.  viii.) 
the  old  law  of  election  was  restored.  This  Act  was 
repealed  in  1  Eliz.  c.  1,  but  with  reservations;  and,  by 


200  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

the  seventh  section,  the  prior  statute  of  25  Hen.  VIII. 
c.  20  was  revived,  and  still  remains  the  law  of  the  land.* 
In  the  event  of  failure  to  elect  the  person  named,  the 
King  may  present  to  the  Metropolitan  without  election, 
and  the  body  of  persons  in  default  incur  a  premunire. 
But  election  even  under  these  restraints  has  proved  to 
be  of  value.  For,  first,  it  is  a  relic  and  symbol  of  the 
popular  as  well  as  clerical  powers  embodied  in  the 
ancient  constitution  of  the  Church  with  regard  to 
episcopal  elections.!  And,  secondly,  experience  has 
shown  that  in  England,  during  times  of  laxity,  the 
prerogative  of  the  Crown  has  been  exercised  with  greater 
moderation  and  discernment  than  in  the  sister  kingdom 
of  Ireland,  where  the  bishops  were  appointed  by  letters 
patent. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that,  after  the  acces¬ 
sion  of  Elizabeth,  no  more  was  heard  of  the  issue  of  the 
commissions  subsisting  during  pleasure,  under  which  the 
bishops  had  been  content  to  act  during  the  later  years 
of  Henry  the  Eighth  and  the  reign  of  his  son  Edward. 
There  was,  however,  much  negative  action,  embraced  by 
the  policy  of  Elizabeth,  which  was  not  less  important 
than  the  positive. 

In  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth  there  had  grown 
up  an  apprehension  sufficiently  reasonable  lest  some  of 
the  canons,  “provincial  or  synodal”  (so  they  were 
described),  might  clash  with  the  statutes  of  the  realm, 
and  might  be  “  much  prejudiced  to  the  King’s  pre¬ 
rogative  royal  ”  and  onerous  both  to  him  and  to  his 

*  I  may  add  that,  within  my  own  recollection,  the  House  of 
Commons  has  refused  to  adopt  a  Bill  which  re-established  the  nomina¬ 
tion  of  Bishops  where  election  has  hitherto  prevailed. 

f  Phillimore,  ‘  Eccl.  Law,’  i.  38. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  201 

subjects. *  Accordingly,  the  clergy  had  petitioned  for 
the  appointment  of  thirty-two  persons — one  half  to  be 
of  their  own  body,  and  the  other  moiety  members  of  one 
or  the  other  House  of  Parliament — to  examine  the  said 
canons,  and  to  present  for  the  King’s  assent  such  of 
them  as  should  be  deemed  meet  to  stand.  An  Act  was 
passed  accordingly ;  but  with  a  strict  proviso  that  none 
of  the  approved  canons  should  be  contrariant  to  preroga¬ 
tive,  custom,  or  statute.  This  law  was  confirmed  by 
subsequent  Acts  in  1535  and  1542-3.  The  appointments 
were  made,  and  the  work  was  ready,  so  that  when  the 
King  died  letters  patent  had  been  prepared  for  giving 
it  effect.  Another  Act  was  passed  in  1549  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  enterprise. 

There  is  some  confusion  in  the  account  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings  at  this  stage,  and  there  are  differences  of  opinion 
among  the  authorities.  What  appears  probable  is  that 
a  commission  of  thirty-two  was  reconstituted  under  the 
Act  of  Edward  for  purposes  of  form,  but  that  the  work 
was  delegated  in  the  first  place  to  eight  among  them, 
under  the  name  of  a  preliminary  work  of  preparation  ; 
and  then  that,  as  Dr.  Cardwell  states,  there  was  a 
further  delegation  to  two — namely,  Archbishop  Cranmer 
and,  proh  pudor ,  Peter  Martyr,  j*  By  these  two  the 
work  was  remodelled  or  corrected.  England  must 
indeed  have  been  poor,  when  such  a  share  in  such  a 
work  was  accorded  to  a  foreign  divine. 

For  it  must  be  observed  that,  like  most  other  projects 
of  the  period,  this  particular  project  had  now  completely 


*  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  xix.  sec.  1. 

f  See  Cardwell's  ‘  Reformatio  Leg.  Eccles.,’pp.  viii.,  xxv.,  xxvi.,  325 
(Oxford,  1850);  Stephen’s  ‘Eccles.  Statutes,’  I. 


202  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHUKCHI  OF  ENGLAND. 

changed  its  face.  It  was  now  no  longer  the  reasonable 
plan  for  reforming  our  synodal  and  provincial  canons, 
and  placing  them  under  due  restraint  of  law.  We 
cannot  be  altogether  surprised  to  find  that  the  original 
definition  of  the  aim  had  been  found  too  narrow ;  for, 
besides  native  canons,  much  foreign  matter  relating  to 
the  Church  had  by  use  hardened  into  British  law,  and 
required  without  doubt  the  application  of  the  pruning 
hand.  But  much  more  was  now  intended  than  a 
corrective  work.  The  title  of  the  Edwardian  Act  *  was 
“  An  Act  that  the  King’s  majesty  may  nominate  and 
appoint  two  and  thirty  persons  to  peruse  and  make 
Ecclesiastical  Laws.”  A  material  change  of  plan  had 
been  at  least  theoretically  made  in  1543,  when  the  title 
and  purpose  of  the  Act  were  further  enlarged  by  the 
addition  of  the  words  “  and  to  establish  all  such  laws 
ecclesiastical  as  shall  be  thought  by  the  King  and  them 
convenient  to  be  used  in  all  Spiritual  Courts.”  When 
to  these  extensions  of  project  was  added  the  change  of 
agents,  as  it  stood  in  1552,  we  see  plainly  that  not  only 
had  the  liberty  of  the  subject  been  seriously  imperilled 
by  foregoing  the  sanction  of  Parliament,  but  the  ground 
had  been  laid  for  cutting  oft'  this  country  from  all  com¬ 
munity  with  Christendom  in  its  laws  of  religion.  It 
was  no  longer  a  plan  for  a  correcting  or  amending 
statute,  however  extensive  :  the  aim,  as  we  find  it  in  the 
j Reformatio  Legum ,  was  to  establish  by  a  complete  scheme, 
newly  hatched,  a  new  point  of  departure.  This  mode 
of  action  was  utterly  alien  to  the  conservative  spirit  of 
British  legislation..  The  ecclesiastical  law  of  the  country 
was,  like  its  temporal  law,  a  gradual  growth.  There 


*  3  &  4  Ed.  VI.,  c.  xi. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  203 

was  a  common  law  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  a  common 
law  of  the  State.  The  new  method  of  procedure  seemed 
to  cut  away  every  bond  of  union  with  the  past,  and  to 
establish  a  kind  of  legislation  absolutely  unknown  to 
the  national  traditions.  Accordingly  the  Preface,  which 
has  the  merit  of  being  written  in  admirable  Latin,  by 
Cheke  or  Haddon,  decries  the  old  laws  in  the  mass,  and 
describes  the  provisions  of  the  work  as  absolutely  new  : 
quarurn  materia  ab  optimis  undique  legibus  petita  videtur ; 
non  solum  ecclesiasticis,  sed  civilibus  etiam ,  veterumque 
Romanarum  prsecipua  antxquitate. 

This  spirit  of  novelty  commended,  naturally  enough, 
the  Reformatio  Legum  to  the  extreme  party,  which  had 
become  so  powerful  in  the  Convocation  of  Elizabeth  that 
it  had  nearly  accomplished  what  might  have  proved  to  be 
a  new  religious  revolution.  In  1562,  an  obscure  state¬ 
ment  of  Bishop  Gibson  appears  to  intimate  that  the  Con¬ 
vocation,  or  its  Lower  House,  moved  in  favour  of  the 
scheme,  but  without  any  practical  result.  In  1571,  the 
Bull  of  Pope  Pius  the  Fifth  against  the  Queen  had  brought 
about  a  crisis,  and  attempts  were  made,  both  in  the  House 
of  Commons  and  in  Convocation,  to  procure  the  adoption 
of  the  work.  Gibson  states  that  this  movement  was 
promoted  by  Archbishop  Parker.*  It  is,  however,  quite 
impossible  that  this  statement  can  apply  to  the  text  of 
the  volume  as  we  have  it  now,  and  as  in  the  main  it  left 
the  hands  of  Crammer  or  of  Martyr.  For  it  was  in  this 
very  Convocation  that  Parker  procured  the  adoption,  by 
the  whole  body  of  his  comprovincial  bishops,  of  a  canon, 
by  which  preachers  were  enjoined  to  teach  nothing  to 
their  people  except  what  was  agreeable  to  Scripture  and 


*  Gibson’s  ‘Codex,’  p.  952. 


204  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

had  been  collected  therefrom  by  “  the  Catholic  Fathers 
and  ancient  bishops.”  *  Whereas  the  'Reformatio  virtu¬ 
ally  sweeps  away  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Church  and 
the  ministry,  and  both  expounds  the  sacraments  in  a 
manner  wholly  incompatible  with  the  Prayer  Book  and 
the  Articles,  and  recognises  no  interpretative  office  in 
the  Church  Universal.  Hook  says  j"  that  the  measure 
failed  through  the  joint  opposition  of  the  Archbishop 
and  the  Queen.  Cardwell  says,J  “  So  little  does  the 
Queen  appear  either  to  have  approved  of  the  book  or  to 
have  been  in  favour  of  the  general  measure,  that  no 
attempt  apparently  was  made  during  her  reign  to  revive 
the  Act  of  1549,  and  it  seems  probable,  from  the  jealousy 
with  which  the  Queen  all  along  viewed  the  action  of 
the  reforming  preachers,  that  she  may  have  suggested 
as  well  as  approved  the  remarkable  canon  of  1571  which 
was  intended  to  guarantee  their  orthodoxy.” 

On  the  one  hand,  the  Queen  may  have  regarded  this 
code  as  importing,  by  the  precision  of  its  terms,  an 
abridgment  of  her  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction ;  on  the 
other,  there  were  strong  reasons  for  desiring  the  enact¬ 
ment  of  a  book  of  discipline  which  might  raise  the 
standard  of  practice  in  the  Church.  But  we  cannot 
suppose  the  Queen  to  have  overlooked  what  is  obviously 
the  main  point  in  the  whole  question,  namely  this  :  A 
new  code,  intended  not  to  consolidate  the  existing  law, 
but  to  uproot  and  replace  it,  meant  a  new  Church.  The 
Elizabethan  policy  was  to  maintain  both  the  personal 
succession  in  the  Church  and  the  continuity  of  its  law, 
subject  to  control  from  the  civil  power  and  to  all 


*  Wilkins,  4  Concilia,’  iii.  267.  f  Hook’s  4  Parker,’  p.  362. 

X  4  Cardwell,’  pref.  p.  xii. ;  Stephen’s  ‘Ecclesiastical  Statutes, ’i.  331  n. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND.  205 

necessary  amendments.  What  slie  seems  to  have  desired 
was,  that  the  amending  laws  in  the  Church  should  hold 
the  same  place  for  the  Church,  as  great  reforming  and 
reconstructing  statutes  for  the  State  :  they  maintain  the 
ancient  constitution,  while  they  alter  and  improve  it. 

I  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on  what  may  be  called 
the  shelving  of  the  Reformatio ,  because  it  was  not  an 
omission,  but  a  renunciation,  and  because  its  extreme 
importance  as  a  determining  condition  in  the  history  of 
the  actual  Church  of  England  has  not,  I  think,  been 
sufficiently  exhibited  by  our  historians  in  general. 

Among  the  minor  inconveniences  of  such  a  code,  it 
may  be  remarked  that  it  would  have  required,  first,  a 
new  tradition  of  interpretation,  and,  secondly,  continual 
amendment.  When  we  reject  wholesale  the  aid  which 
the  labour  of  preceding  generations  has  provided,  we 
expose  our  own  work  to  the  severest  treatment  from  the 
generations  that  are  to  follow.  The  legislator,  as  such, 
is  compelled  by  his  office  to  judge  on  their  behalf  as  to 
particular  points.  But  if  he  chooses  to  judge  for  them 
on  all  points,  that  is  his  own  fault  and  folly.  Men  so 
acting  are  apt  to  tumble  into  pitfalls.  Thus,  to  take  a 
minute  instance,  the  Reformatio  orders  that  where  the 
Old  Testament  is  found  obscure  it  shall  be  cleared*' 
from  the  Hebrew  text ;  its  compilers  doubtless  being 
unaware  of  the  fact  that  the  youngest  Hebrew  MS., 
from  which  the  LXX  worked,  was  by  many  centuries 
older  than  the  oldest  of  those  upon  which  the  pre¬ 
sent  Hebrew  text  is  based ;  and  perhaps  also  that 
the  Septuagint  is  cited  as  freely  as  the  Hebrew  in 
the  Books  of  the  New  Testament.  Such  objections, 


*  ‘  Tit.’  1.  c.  12. 


206  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

however,  are  only  accessory  to  those  which  lie  against  the 
principle  or  initial  conception  of  the  scheme. 

It  still  remains  to  examine  the  Elizabethan  policy  in 
its  relation  to  the  creed  of  the  Church.  And  here  again 
we  have  to  notice  both  a  negative  and  an  affirmative 
side  of  this  policy.  Negatively,  the  Queen  not  only 
withstood  all  overtures  for  further  change  in  the  Prayer 
Book,  but,  during  the  first  twelve  years  of  her  reign,  she 
would  not  suffer  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  to  be  imposed 
by  law  even  on  the  clergy.  Evidently  she  regarded 
them  as  an  instrument  which  had  been  required  and 
justified  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  but  one  which 
ought  to  be  kept  in  hand  in  a  ductile  condition,  and 
might  be  dealt  with  according  as  any  change  in  those 
circumstances  might  thereafter  require.  But,  when  the 
Pope  had  launched  his  Bull  of  Deposition,  she  met  it  by 
falling  back  all  the  more  frankly  upon  her  people,  and 
took  a  step  acceptable  to  the  reforming  party  by  allow¬ 
ing  the  Articles  to  find  a  place  upon  the  statute  book.* 
Even  then  the  obligation  was  confined  to  persons  under 
the  degree  of  a  bishop  and  to  the  Articles  which  concern 
the  “true  Christian  faith”  and  the  sacraments. 

But  she  had  included  in  her  proceedings  as  to  the 
Articles  perhaps  the  boldest  of  all  her  strokes  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  policy,  and  had  acted  in  excess  of  law  with  a  far¬ 
sighted  view  to  the  recognition  and  consolidation  of  other 
law  which  rested  on  a  deeper  and  more  secure  foundation. 

The  twentieth  of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England  begins  in  these  words :  “  The  Church  hath 

power  to  decree  rites  or  ceremonies,  and  authority  in 
controversies  of  faith.” 


*  13  Eliz.  c.  12. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  20T 


These  words  were  not  in  the  original  draft  of  the 
Articles  of  1562  ;  and  the  reference  in  the  statute  is  not 
to  that  original,  blit  to  a  printed  book  and  to  its  title, 
which  is  not  yet  perhaps  fully  identified.  It  was  only  as 
we  approached  the  middle  of  the  present  century  that 
Dr.  Lamb,  Master  of  Corpus  Christi  College  in  Cam¬ 
bridge,  published  his  ‘  Historical  A.ccount  of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles’  from  1553  to  1571,*  and  for  the  first 
time  placed  beyond  dispute  the  question  how  this  most 
important  clause  first  found  its  way  into  the  body  of 
the  book  :  that  is  to  say,  through  the  simple  method  of 
insertion  by  the  Queen  herself. 

Dr.  Lamb  observes  f  that  the  clause  appears  in  the 
first  printed  copy  of  the  Articles,  which  was  issued  under 
the  Queen’s  authority  in  1563.  It  was  inserted  there 
after  the  Articles  had  passed  the  Convocation,  and  before 
they  could  be  published  with  authority.  In  order  to 
have  authority  under  the  Act  of  Submission,  they  re¬ 
quired  the  Great  Seal  to  be  attached  to  them,  and  thus 
came  into  the  hands  of  the  Queen.  That  she  was 
personally  the  author  of  this  clause  becomes  almost  a 
certainty  from  circumstantial  evidence.  In  the  first 
place,  she  kept  the  book  in  her  hands  for  a  twelvemonth. 
In  the  second  place,  when  it  came  forth,  she  appended 
to  the  book  a  statement  that  she  had  assented  to  it 
“  after  diligent  reading  and  scrutiny  by  herself  :  ”  quibus 
omnibus  .  .  .  per  seipsam  diligenter  prius  lectis  et  exctmi- 
natis,  regium  suum  assert  sum  prsebuit. 


*  Cambridge ;  Deightons,  1829. 

f  ‘Historical  Account,’  p.  33.  Hardwick  in  1851  followed  Lamb 
(1829).  He  examines  the  subject  more  at  large  (pp.  129-52), 
Various  points  still  remain  open  to  discussion.  My  attempt  is  to  deal 
with  any  of  them  only  so  far  as  they  regard  the  Queen. 


208  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

Nor  was  this  the  only  point  in  which  the  Queen 
laboured  for  the  cause  of  religious  reaction  and  recon¬ 
struction  through  the  Articles.  She  obtained  for  the 
time  the  exclusion  from  the  Book  of  the  Twenty-ninth 
Article  (on  non-reception  by  the  wicked),  which  of  the 
whole  number  was  perhaps  the  most  characteristically 
Protestant.  Cecil,  who  may  be  regarded  as  practically 
one  with  the  Queen  in  religious  position  and  belief, 
as  well  as  by  general  conformity  of  mind,  laboured  to 
bring  Archbishop  Parker  to  the  excision  of  this  Article. 
He  failed ;  but  the  Article  was  struck  out  of  the  Book, 
and  only  reappeared  in  1571  when,  after  the  Deposing 
Bull  of  the  Pope,  the  reforming  party  had  become  too 
strong  for  the  Queen,  and  she  was  compelled  partially  to 
beat  a  retreat. 

I  have  said  partially,  because,  when  she  could  no 
longer  prevent  the  Parliament  from  intermeddling  in  the 
matter,  she  endeavoured  by  a  side  movement  in  some 
considerable  degree  to  neutralise  their  action. 

The  Commons  had  passed  in  1566  a  Bill  for  Subscrip¬ 
tion  ;  #  but  the  Queen  stopped  its  progress  in  the  Lords. 
In  1571  the  Parliament  again  met.  It  was  on  April  2  ; 
and  on  the  7th  a  similar  Bill  was  introduced,  together 
with  other  Bills  into  the  House  of  Commons.  Two  of 
them — the  Bill  for  Subscription  being  one — appeared  on 
May  3  in  the  House  of  Lords.  This  was  in  defiance 
of  the  Queen,  who  on  May  1  f  had  given  them  to 
understand  that  she  “  liked  very  well  of  the  Articles  ” 
and  would  publish  them,  but  “  not  to  have  the  same 
dealt  in  by  Parliament.”  She  gave  her  assent  to  the 
Bill  on  May  29.  But  in  the  mean  time  it  had  been 


* 


Dr.  Lamb,  p.  24. 


f  Ibid.  p.  27. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  209 

adopted  (in  a  form  not  identical  with  that  of  1562  *) 
and  subscribed  in  Convocation  on  the  11th,  with  an 
order  for  circulation  in  all  the  dioceses,  and  it  was 
published  with  a  royal  Ratification,!  which  makes  no 
reference  to  the  Act,  and  therefore,  I  make  no  doubt, 
preceded  it.  In  this  Book  J  the  Twenty-ninth  Article 
reappears,  while  the  disputed  clause  in  the  Twentieth 
remains  excluded.  Assent  to  this  was  probably  the 
price  which  Elizabeth  had  to  pay  for  having  the  Articles 
settled,  issued,  and  circulated  (as  Convocation  had 
ordered)  throughout  the  country  without  any  notice  of 
the  action  of  the  Lords  and  Commons. 

But  prudence  did  not  permit  the  Queen  any  longer  to 
baulk  her  Parliament,  and  the  Bill  became  an  Act. 
There  remains  the  question,  What  book  or  copy  of  the 
Articles  was  that  which  passed  through  the  Houses  h 
Plainly  not  that  used  by  the  Convocation :  for  they 
acted  and  signed  while  the  House  of  Lords  had  in  its 
custody  the  Book  referred  to  by  the  Act.  In  the  Book, 
as  Dr.  Lamb  thinks  it  was  passed  by  Parliament^  the 
disputed  clause  does  not  appear ;  but  neither  does  the 
Twenty-ninth  Article.  It  appeared,  however,  in  one  or 
more  editions  published  in  that  year.||  Until  the  rule 
of  Laud,  it  was  sometimes  included  and  sometimes 
omitted.  It  was  then  de  facto  fastened  into  the  body  of 
the  Articles.  It  finally  obtained  ecclesiastical  as  well 
as  civil  authority  in  the  great  settlement  of  1662 
which  finally  sealed  the  effort  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  The 


*  Dr.  Lamb,  p.  28.  t  Ibid.  p.  29. 

I  Nos.  v.  and  vi.  of  the  copies  printed  by  Dr.  Lamb. 

§  No.  iii.  of  the  forms  printed  by  him. 

||  Lamb,  p.  87.  Hardwick,  ‘  Hist,  of  the  Articles,’  pp.  140-5. 
^  13  &  14  Car.  II.  c.  4,  sec.  xvii. 


I. 


P 


210  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

Act  declares  the  Articles  to  be  the  same  as  those  named 
in  the  statute  of  1571. 

Besides  the  case  of  the  Articles,  there  is  another 
instance  in  which  Elizabeth  seems  clearly  to  have  gone 
beyond  the  legal  and  constitutional  limits  of  her 
executive  power. 

Edmund  Grindal,  successor  of  Parker,  became  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury  in  1576.  His  primacy  was  a  very 
short  one.  As  a  man  of  earnest  piety,  he  was  sensible 
of  the  grievous  defect  of  preaching  power  in  the  clergy, 
and  he  appears  while  Archbishop  of  York  to  have 
encouraged  the  use  of  a  remedy  by  what  were  called  the 
exercises  or  prophesyings,  conferences  of  the  clergy  on 
portions  of  Scripture,  begun  and  concluded  with  prayer. 
His  promotion  to  Canterbury  was  by  some  ascribed  to 
the  desire  of  the  Queen  to  have  him  more  under  her 
control. 

There  was  much  to  say  for  the  exercises  :  which, 
however,  in  his  first  year  he  had  to  place  under  the 
control  of  most  rigid  rules. *  But  this  did  not  avail, 
and  in  his  second  year  the  Queen  prohibited  them  by 
proclamation  as  not  warranted  by  the  laws.t  This 
was  in  May,  1577.  In  June  he  was  sequestered,  on 
account  of  non-compliance,  for  six  months,  and  confined 
to  his  house.  He  appointed  vicars-general  for  his 
diocese,  and  was  occasionally  called  upon  to  act.  He 
remained  a  nominal  primate,  without  influence  or  power, 
until  1583,  when  he  died  just  as  the  arrangements  for 
his  resigning  his  see  were  approaching  completion.  £ 
The  reigns  of  Henry  the  Eighth  and  Edward  the  Sixth 


*  Wilkins,  ‘Concilia,’  iv.  287.  f  Ibid.  p.  289. 

X  Strype’s  ‘  Life  of  Grindal,’  chs.  v.,  xiv. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  211 

can  exhibit  no  more  remarkable  exercise  of  arbitrary- 
power  on  the  one  side,  and  absolute  submission  on  the 
other,  than  we  find  in  the  case  of  Grindal.  In  1580, 
sixteen  bishops  of  his  province  petitioned  for  his 
restoration,  but  in  vain.''"  The  singular  feature  of  the 
Queen’s  conduct  is  this,  that  she  used  arbitrary  power 
in  opposition  to  the  sense  of  her  prelates,  in  order  to 
maintain  the  strict  law  and  discipline  of  the  Church. 
She  had  not  disposed  of  the  Marian  bishops  by  prero¬ 
gative,  but  by  law.  So  far  as  I  know,  this  case,  and 
that  of  her  operations  on  the  Articles,  are  the  only 
instances  in  ecclesiastical  matters  of  her  going  beyond 
the  law  ;  and  in  both  cases  it  was  clearly  with  a  view 
not  to  weakening,  but  to  securing  the  Church  against 
what  she  thought  more  dangerous  illegality.  It  is  right 
that  her  motive  should  be  observed,  without  asking  how 
far  it  affords  justification  or  excuse. 

Let  us  now  review,  in  a  summary  manner,  and 
according  to  the  best  evidence  in  our  possession,  the 
chief  acts  and  attempts  of  this  extraordinary  woman, 
done  or  attempted  with  a  view  to  determining  the 
character  and  position  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
England. 

1.  She  began  by  a  tentative  effort  to  use  the  Book  of 
1549  as  the  basis  of  reformed  worship,  but  desisted  for 
lack  of  support ;  for  she  had  a  quick  discernment  of  the 
practicable. 

2.  Falling  back  on  the  Book  of  1552,  she  made  legal 
provision  for  continuity  as  to  what  met  the  eye  in  public 
worship,  by  the  enactment  of  the  Ornaments  Rubric. 

3.  She  provided  against  a  most  palpable  breach  in  the 


*  Wilkins,  ‘  Concilia,’  iv.  293. 


212  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

audible  and  moral  continuity  of  the  service  of  the 
Church,  by  the  re-insertion  of  the  ancient  words  of 
delivery  in  the  ministration  of  the  Holy  Sacrament, 
and  by  the  abandonment  of  the  Zwinglian  rubric  at  the 
close  of  the  service. 

4.  She  conciliated  those  of  Homeward  leanings  with¬ 
out  offending  any  man  of  sense  by  striking  out  from  the 
Litany  the  clause  which  denounced  the  Pope. 

5.  She  resisted  successfully  the  attempts  of  the  House 
of  Commons  to  innovate  upon  the  Prayer  Book ;  and 
she  resisted  also  the  endeavours  to  enforce  the  Articles, 
until  the  violent  hostility  of  the  Pope  compelled  her  to 
strengthen  herself  in  the  quarters  opposed  to  him. 

6.  She  dropped  the  claim  to  the  headship  of  the 
Church,  and  gave  thereby  satisfaction  to  the  Puritans, 
as  well  as  to  the  friends  of  the  unreformed  religion. 

7.  She  limited  the  supremacy,  by  defining  it  to  be  such 
as  had  lawfully  belonged  from  old  time  to  the  Sovereigns 
of  England. 

8.  She  provided  against  the  absorption  of  the 
spiritual  estate  in  the  executive  by  constituting  a 
separate  organ  for  the  disposal  in  the  temporal  sphere 
of  ecclesiastical  causes,  and  by  confining  it  to  judicial 
functions. 

9.  She  placed  a  barrier  in  the  way  of  dogmatic 
narrowness  by  enacting  that  nothing  should  be  declared 
anew  to  be  heresy  except  with  the  assent  both  of  the 
spiritualty  and  the  temporalty. 

10.  She  established  as  her  ordinary  method  of  action 
in  Church  matters  that  of  communications  from  herself 
or  her  council  to  the  Primate  or  the  bishops,  as  the 
actual  chief  magistrates  of  the  Church,  sometimes  in 
the  tone  of  request,  sometimes  of  injunction. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  213 

11.  Instead  of  renewing  the  Act  of  Edward  the 
Sixth  for  the  appointment  of  bishops  by  letters  patent, 
she  restored  the  method  of  a  conge  cVelire  for  their 
election. 

12.  She  put  an  end  to  the  system  of  commissions 
during  pleasure,  under  which  the  prelates  of  Henry  the 
Eighth  and  Edward  the  Sixth  had  acted. 

13.  She  renounced  the  policy  and  plan  of  a  new  code 
of  laws  for  the  Church  which  had  been  actively  prose¬ 
cuted  under  both  those  Sovereigns. 

14.  When  driven  by  the  urgency  of  affairs  to  allow 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  to  take  their  place  on  the 
statute  book  as  a  test,  she  contrived  for  their  issue  to 
the  country  on  her  own  authority  and  that  of  the 
clergy,  without  any  notice  either  of  the  Act  or  of  its 
limitations. 

15.  In  her  jealousy  lest  the  substance  of  the  Eucharistic 
doctrine  should  be  impaired,  she  fought  hard  for  the 
exclusion  of  the  Twenty-ninth  Article,  which  asserts 
non-reception  by  the  wicked. 

16.  She  introduced  into  the  Twentieth  Article  the 
declaration  not  only  of  the  power  to  decree  rites  and 
ceremonies,  but  that  “  the  Church  hath  authority  in 
controversies  of  faith.” 

17.  She  used  every  effort  to  obtain  the  aid  of  some  of 
the  bishops  in  possession  for  filling  the  vacant  sees,  and 
issued  her  mandate  for  the  election  of  Parker  only  on 
the  day  *  when  she  had  secured  the  official  adherence  of 
one  at  least  among  them. 

18.  In  clearing  the  sees  by  the  expulsion  of  the 
Marian  bishops  she  acted  strictly,  as  has  recently  been 


*  Lamb,  p.  11. 


2 14  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHUItCH  OP  ENGLAND. 

shown  in  this  Review,"  according  to  law  both  of  the 
State  as  declared  by  the  first  Act  of  her  own  reign,  and 
of  the  Church  as  established  by  Convocation  in  1531, 
and  never  thereafter  cancelled. 

I  might  refer  to  the  retention  of  the  law  of  Mary  on 
the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  to  the  controversy  on  images, 
and  to  other  matters,  but  the  heads  here  enumerated 
will  probably  suffice. 

It  is  singular,  and  somewhat  disheartening  for  the 
student  of  human  action,  to  note  the  manner  in  which 
this  great  scheme  of  effort,  so  boldly  and  so  persistently 
undertaken  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  has  been  estimated  by 
some  writers  on  the  history  of  England  and  the  Church 
of  England. 

Mr.  Hallam,  a  wise  and  moderate  writer,  has  noticed 
the  personal  leanings  of  Elizabeth,  and  thinks  she  may 
also  have  been  guided  by  high  motives  of  equity  and 
prudence,  yet  inclines  towards  censuring  her  for  not 
meeting  the  demands  of  the  Puritans.  |  Carwithen 
commends  her  for  firm  resistance  on  the  right  hand  and 
the  left 4  But  neither  of  these  authors  appears  to 
perceive  or  to  allow  how  much  there  was  in  her  policy 
of  real  initiative,  of  creative  or  reconstructive  energy. 
Hume  accuses  the  Queen  of  having  by  the  Act  of  Supre¬ 
macy  assumed  absolute  power,  among  other  things,  to 
establish  or  repeal  all  canons ;  §  of  which  in  the  Act 
there  is  not  a  word.  More  strangely  still,  Dr.  Lamb,  to 
whose  investigations  of  facts  and  documents  we  are  so 
much  indebted,  treats  ||  her  insertion  in  the  Twentieth 
Article  of  the  power  of  the  Church  to  establish  rites, 


*  July,  1888.  f  Hallam,  ‘Const.  Hist.,’  vol.  i.  c.  iv.  p.l 91,  4to. 
X  Vol.  ii.  c.  xv.  §  Hume,  V.  xlviii.  ||  Dr.  Lamb,  p.  33. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  215 

and  of  her  authority  in  controversies  of  faith,  as 
equivalent  to  declaring  herself  to  be  not  only  the 
protector  but  the  sole  director  of  her  subjects’  faith; 
and  again  he  speaks  of  her  asserting  her  “  prerogative 
as  supreme  Head  of  the  Church,”  *  which  even  Hume 
perceived  that  she  had  renounced.  Collier  censures  her 
for  having  made  beggars  in  the  Church  without  allow¬ 
ance  for  service  in  any  other  direction.!  Bishop  Short 
appreciates  her  greatness,  gives  her  credit  for  personal 
piety,  and  blames  her  love  of  power.]:  None  of  these 
writers,  I  think,  have  awarded  to  her  exactly  that 
which  is  her  due. 

And  her  due  is  not  the  praise  of  an  amiable  character, 
or  of  a  friend  or  promoter  of  individual  freedom  as 
distinguished  from  national  independence.  A  Tudor 
from  top  to  toe,  her  own  disposition  led  her  to  strong 
exercises  of  power,  and  the  real  necessities  of  the  case 
inclined  her  in  the  same  direction.  To  modify  the 
Articles  of  her  own  motion  by  insertion  and  exclusion, 
to  sequester  and  virtually  depose  at  her  will  an  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury,  were  lawless  acts.  But  how  can 
we  impute  general  lawlessness  to  a  Princess  who  made 
so  many  laws  in  restraint  of  her  own  power  over  the 
Church  ;  or  how  charge  her  with  despotism  in  the  Church, 
when  even  those  acts  which  most  savoured  of  it  were, 
whether  in  themselves  wise  or  unwise,  yet  certainly 
addressed  in  good  faith  to  the  establishment  and  main¬ 
tenance  of  a  legal  constitution  and  of  an  effective 
authority  apart  from  her  own  ? 

I  think  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  acts  and 

*  Dr.  Lamb,  p.  24.  f  Collier,  ix.  438. 

X  1  Hist,  of  Church  of  England,’  pp.  468-69. 


216  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

abstentions  which  have  here  been  put  together  were  by  no 
means  isolated  or  impulsive,  but  were  parts  of  a  scheme 
or  system.  The  essence  of  this  scheme  or  system, 
undertaken  in  concurrence  with  an  arbitrary  civil 
government,  and  as  it  may  be  in  a  larger  or  smaller 
degree  for  the  sake  of  it,  was  to  build  up  the  Church, 
beneath  the  shadow  of  the  prerogative,  which  had  been 
used  so  largely  under  Henry  and  Edward  to  depress  and 
dishonour  it  as  to  threaten  depriving  it  of  all  capacity 
to  command  respect,  to  train  character,  or  to  exercise 
beneficial  influence.  Other  princes,  however,  Charle¬ 
magne  for  example,  have  conceived  and  pursued  a  con¬ 
structive  policy  in  the  Church.  The  point  in  which 
Elizabeth  stands  alone,  as  far  as  I  know,  is  this,  that 
she  pursued  her  work  from  first  to  last  mainly  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  Church’s  rulers  and  without  a  party  to 
support  her ;  that  is  to  say,  without  a  hold  in  religion 
on  either  party,  except  that  they  liked  her  better  than 
they  liked  the  idea  of  a  change  which  might  increase  the 
power  of  their  antagonists.  Thus  it  may  truly  be  said 
that  she  rode  upon  the  storm  and  that  she  had  hardly 
more  than  one  great,  faithful,  able  servant  to  help  to 
steady  her  in  her  seat. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Elizabeth  made  no  direct  con¬ 
tribution  by  her  religious  policy  to  another  essential 
requisite  of  the  national  character,  that,  namely,  which 
was  represented  and  fostered  by  Puritanism ;  and  to 
which  we  owe  it  that  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  the 
birth-sin  of  the  English  Reformation  and  the  plague-spot 
of  the  Church  of  England,  did  not  undermine  and  absorb 
the  political  liberties  of  the  nation.  The  only  excuse 
that  can  be  offered  is  that  if  the  policy  of  the  Queen 
was  the  only  one  which  in  those  days  could  have  secured 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  217 


the  independence  of  the  kingdom,  then  she  took  a 
certain,  though,  it  must  be  admitted,  a  circuitous  road 
towards  the  establishment  of  religious  freedom. 

Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  ideal  than  the 
English  Church  has  been  in  its  practical  development. 
Perhaps  even  in  its  ideal  it  is  assailable  enough.  Yet 
it  has  been  a  solid  and  not  trifling  piece  of  human  his¬ 
tory,  and  has  had  a  large-  share  in  moulding  the  charac¬ 
ter,  and  determining  the  fortunes,  of  a  great  nation. 
This  paper,  this  brief  study,  if  it  may  so  be  called,  is 
not  a  panegyric  either  upon  an  institution  or  a  human 
being ;  it  simply  aims  at  the  exhibition,  by  the  enumera¬ 
tion  of  facts  in  one  among  many  aspects,  of  a  mind  per¬ 
sistent  in  its  work,  and  singularly  powerful  while  clad 
in  female  form.  That  this  nation  is  what  it  is,  and  this 
Church  is  what  it  is,  may  without  praise  or  blame,  but 
only  in  acknowledgment  of  the  fact,  be  owned  due  to 
Queen  Elizabeth  as  much  as  to  any  human  being,  that 
has  ever  in  this  island  enjoyed  or  suffered  the  stern  and 
bracing  experience  of  life. 

I  have  stated  in  this  paper  that  Elizabeth  in  her 
operations  upon  the  Church  of  England  had  to  make  her 
bricks  without  straw,  and  had  no  party  to  support  her. 
Those  operations  exhibit  an  example  of  the  effects  which 
may  be  produced  by  strong  will  combined  with  con¬ 
summate  skill,  such  as  is  rare  in  history.  She  took  an 
exact  measure  of  her  own  strength,  and  used  it  accord- 

ingly. 

Her  father  had  carried  with  him,  in  his  proceedings 
against  the  Pope,  the  entire  body  of  the  bishops.  An 
interval  of  years  separates  the  downfall  of  Fisher  from 
the  proceedings  of  the  Convocation  which  renounced  the 
papal  jurisdiction.  The  accession  of  Edward  YI.  did 


218  QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


not  bring  about  a  religious  crisis.  Nor  did  the  earliest 
of  his  measures  in  the  direction  of  reform.  But  their 
result,  as  a  whole,  was  the  deprivation  of  a  number  of 
bishops,  and  the  formation  of  a  Roman  party  in  the 
episcopal  body.  It  was  a  natural  consequence  that  men 
such  as  Tunstal  and  Heath  should  become  committed  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  Marian  period,  and  should  con¬ 
sequently  decline  to  associate  themselves  with  Elizabeth 
in  her  work,  much  as  she  appears  to  have  desired  it. 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  both  these  distinguished  pre¬ 
lates,  who  had  tolerated  the  Headship  under  Henry  VIII. , 
refused  the  milder  form  of  the  Supremacy  which  she 
introduced,  and  did  not  wait  to  take  their  objection  on 
the  ground  of  any  doctrinal  change." 

*  It  is  interesting  to  glance  at  an  event,  which  had  taken  place  in 
Scotland.  The  Scottish  Church  published,  in  1552,  what  is  known  as 
the  Catechism  of  Archbishop  Hamilton.  Its  apparent  aim  was  to  set 
forth  the  established  teaching  of  the  pre-reformation  Church,  but, 
in  doing  this,  from  its  first  to  its  last  page  it  contained  no  recog¬ 
nition,  not  even  a  notice,  of  the  Pope  or  Church  of  Rome.  It  may 
be  inferred  that  the  Scottish  bishops  and  clergy  were  generally  of  the 
same  mind,  as  the  English  bishops  and  clergy  under  Henry  VIII. 
They  probably  contemplated  a  National  Church,  and  a  free  passage 
through  the  critical  period  without  violent  changes,  and  without  a 
rupture  of  internal  unity.  It  seems  therefore  possible  that  the  changes 
effected  under  Edward  VI.,  especially  in  his  later  years,  may  have 
caused  the  Scotch  bishops  to  abandon,  after  publishing  the  Catechism, 
hopes  which  had  been  alive  at  the  period  of  its  compilation,  and  may 
thus  have  rendered  religious  revolution  certain,  to  the  north  as  well 
as  to  the  south  of  the  Border.  This  important  document  has  recently 
been  reprinted  at  the  Clarendon  Press. — W.  E.  G.,  1896. 


VIL 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII.* 

1889. 

The  sixteenth  century  was  highly  remarkable  in  our 
annals  for  the  production  of  great  facts  and  strong  men. 
The  principle  and  the  basis  of  its  main  proceedings  in 
religion  have  been  imperfectly  traced  by  many  of  our 
writers  under  the  dauble  influence  of  insufficient  access 
to  information  and  of  exuberant  partisanship.  The  facts, 
complex  in  themselves  and  but  partially  known,  have 
been  inaccurately  handled  even  within  the  limits  of  that 
partial  knowledge.  But  a  new  day  has  dawned,  with 
the  enlarged  access  to  the  sources  which  has  been  opened 
by  the  publication  on  a  large  scale  of  authentic  records ; 
while  this  has  occurred  simultaneously  with  that  great 
extension  of  historical  studies  and  historical  appetite 
among  us,  which  may  almost  be  called  the  rise  of  a  new 
historical  school.  Such  are  the  impressions  I  have  been 
led  to  form  by  my  own  doubtless  insufficient  inquiries. 
If  they  are  in  any  degree  well-founded  there  is  still  a 
great  work  to  be  done  in  portions  of  this  field.  Some¬ 
thing  may  be  attempted  gradually  even  by  piecemeal 
contributions,  such  as  those  which  I  have  taken  upon 
myself  to  offer. 


*  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century . 


220 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


In  this  Review  for  July,  1888,  under  the  title  of  “  The 
Elizabethan  Settlement  of  Religion,”  I  undertook  the 
proof  of  certain  propositions,  which  may  be  substantially 
restated  as  follows  : — 

1.  A  basis  of  ecclesiastical  legality  for  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  English  Reformation,  in  their  determining 
conditions,  was  laid  in  the  reign  of  King  Henry  the 
Eighth. 

2.  This  basis  was  not  laid  by  the  persons  who  are 
popularly  known  as  Reformers,  such  as  Cranmer  and 
his  coadjutors,  but  was  anterior  to  the  rupture  with 
Rome  brought  about  by  the  (so-called)  divorce,  and  had 
the  sanction  of  the  collective  national  episcopate,  in¬ 
cluding  such  great  names  as  those  of  Warharn,  Tunstal, 
Gardiner,  and  Fisher,  as  well  as  of  the  clergy  of  the 
second  order,  all  represented  in  Convocation. 

3.  This  being  so,  the  doctrinal  assertions  and  the 
ritual  and  other  changes  of  the  period  have  to  be  tried 
upon  their  merits,  or  upon  the  competency  of  a  National 
Church  to  enact  or  adopt  them,  but  cannot  be  dismissed 
without  trial  as  having  been  forced  upon  the  Church 
by  the  civil  authority,  which  was,  I  admit,  essentially 
incompetent  to  constitute  an  order  of  bishops,  or  legiti¬ 
mately  to  establish  various  other  changes  such  as  were 
actually  made. 

To  these  I  will  now  add  a  fourth  proposition,  for  the 
purpose  of  setting  aside,  as  irrelevant  to  the  present 
issue,  questions  which  may  be  raised  with  reference  to 
some  portions  of  the  subject,  and  especially  to  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  sanction  due  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
as  it  stood  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  For  us  of  the 
present  day  it  seems  enough  to  say,  fourthly,  that,  on 
the  Restoration  of  Charles  the  Second,  this  sanction  was 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


221 


supplied  in  a  manner  thoroughly  regular  and  formal ; 
and  that  the  scheme  thus  appointed  by  the  concurrence 
of  the  temporalty  and  the  spiritualty  of  the  land  has 
subsisted  for  more  than  two  centuries  and  a  quarter. 
I  may,  perhaps,  subjoin  that  there  is  no  apparent  sign 
of  its  having  come  near  to  the  close  of  its  existence. 

These  are  propositions  turning  altogether  upon  matters 
of  historical  fact ;  but  they  tend  towards  establishing 
the  continuity  of  the  British  episcopate  from  the  period 
before  the  Reformation  downwards ;  and,  though  I  have 
avoided  impugning  any  other  scheme  or  system,  they 
have  drawn  forth  criticism  both  from  Nonconforming  * 
and  especially  from  Roman  Catholic  quarters. 

I  shall  now  endeavour  to  deal  with  all  the  principal 
allegations  which  have  been  urged  against  me,  and  first 
with  one  serious  charge  of  inaccuracy  brought  by  Mr. 
Morris,  S.  J.f  It  relates  to  Fisher,  and  the  oath  exacted 
under  the  Succession  Act ;  and  my  statement  (in  p.  8) 
has  led  Mr.  Morris  to  assert  that  Fisher  never  took  any 
such  oath,  and  that  in  support  of  the  contrary  allegation 
there  is  not  a  corroborating  word  in  Sander’s  Book  on 
the  Schism.  While  I  admit  that  my  allegation  is  wrong 
in  one  point  of  chronology,  I  shall  endeavour  to  support 
its  substance  ;  and,  to  proceed  in  order,  I  will  first  quote 
the  important  passage  from  Sander  to  which  I  referred. 
The  passage  J  is  as  follows  : — 

*  The  British  Weekly ,  Nov.  23,  1888. 

f  Dublin  Review ,  Oct.,  1888,  p.  252. 

X  Sander,  ‘  De  Origine  ac  Progressu  schismatis  Anglicam,’  ed.  Rome, 
1586,  pp.  106,  107.  I  find  a  corresponding  passage  in  the  Cologne 
edition  of  1610,  and  in  the  French  translation,  Paris,  1683.  Upon 
examining,  however,  an  English  translation,  published  in  1877  by  Mr. 
David  Lewis,  I  find  that  no  less  than  twelve  consecutive  pages  of  the 
original,  as  it  stands  in  the  editions  I  have  cited,  do  not  appear  in  it. 


•229 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII, 


“His  inquam  aliisque  multis  rationibus  inductus  ac  deceptus 
Roffensis  (de  quo  postea  ssepissime  gravissimeque  doluit),  neces¬ 
sitate  praesenti  cedendum  ratus,  persuasit  reliquis,  qui  firmiores 
adkuc  erant  in  Christo  (nam  plerique  jam  Arckiepiscopis  Cranmero 
et  Leio,  kuic  Eboracensi,  illi  Cantuariensi,  qui  ambo  Regis  nego- 
tium  promovebant,  adhseserant),  ut  saltern  cum  exceptione  ilia 
praeclicta  (quantum  per  Dei  verbum  liceret)  obedientiam  Regi  in 
causis  ecclesiasticis  ac  spiritualibus  jurarent.  Cujus  facti  Roffen- 
sem  postea  usque  adeo  poenituit,  ut  publice  se  incusans  diceret, 
suas,  id  est  Episcopi,  partes  fuisse,  non  cum  exceptione  dubia,  sed 
aperte  et  disertis  verbis  cseteros  potius  docuisse  quid  verbum  Dei 
permitteret,  quidve  prohiberet,  quo  minus  alii  in  fraudem  incur- 
rerent:  nec  unquam  sibi  deinceps  peccatum  lioc  expiasse  videbatur, 
quousque  proprio  sanguine  banc  maculam  eluisset.” 

No  one  will,  I  think,  deny  that  this  is  a  passage  of 
great  importance,  although  it  has  escaped  the  notice  of 
Mr.  Bridgett,  S.J.,  in  his  able  biography  of  Fisher.* 

Mr.  Morris  f  quotes  the  second  Act  of  attainder 
against  Fisher,  and  Burnet’s  account  of  his  behaviour  on 
his  trial,  to  show  what  requires  no  showing — namely, 
that  at  a  certain  date  in  1534,  and  in  1535,  Fisher 
refused  to  take  the  oath  of  succession.  But  these  facts 
do  not  dispose  of  the  statement  of  Sander,  which  is 
express  to  this  extent,  that  Fisher  recommended  those 
of  the  chief  prelates  who  were  most  adverse  to  the  King’s 


This  passage,  with  the  narrative  to  which  it  belongs,  forms  part  of 
them.  Some  explanation  appears  to  be  required.  Sander  died  before 
the  publication  of  the  work  by  Rishton.  The  introduction  and  notes 
by  Mr.  Lewis  evince  great  research.  Not  only,  however,  does  he 
ascribe  the  ‘  De  Antiquitate  ’  to  Parker,  which  though  not  the  truth 
is  not  far  from  it,  but  he  states  that  the  Clergy  of  1531  in  their  terror 
withdrew  the  limiting  clause,  “  per  legem  Christi,”  and  thus  the 
Recognition  passed  without  it  (note,  p.  92).  This  seems  to  be  rather 
a  gross  instance  of  what  I  have  said  in  the  text  as  to  historical 
inaccuracies. 

*  ‘Life  of  Blessed  John  Fisher.’  Burns  &  Oates,  1888. 

t  Dublin  Review,  p.  252. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


223 


proceedings  to  take  an  oath  promising  obedience  to  him 
even  in  spiritual  causes,  and  that  afterwards  he  bitterly 
repented  of  this  conduct  and  considered  that  it  required 
expiation  by  his  blood.  The  questions,  which  arise  upon 
the  passage,  seem  to  be  these  three  : — • 

1 .  What  was  the  oath  to  which  it  refers  1 

2.  What  was  the  time  to  which  it  refers  1 

3.  Did  Fisher  himself  take  the  oath,  or  did  he  only 
persuade  others  to  take  it  ? 

As  to  the  first  question,  we  know  of  no  novel  or 
special  oath  of  the  period  anterior  to  the  oath  of  succes¬ 
sion.  No  Act  of  Parliament  had  been  passed  earlier 
than  the  Act  of  Succession,  at  the  beginning  of  1534, 
which  in  any  manner  required  the  taking  of  an  oath. 
The  concessions  of  the  clergy,  in  1531  (the  Recognition), 
and  in  1532  (the  Submission),  had  not  become  the  law 
of  the  land.  The  Royal  Headship  was  not  enacted 
until  the  end  of  1534,  but  it  was  logically  involved  in 
the  Act  of  Succession;  for  that  Act  defined  the  oath 
to  be  one  for  maintaining  “  the  whole  effects  and  con¬ 
tents  ”  of  the  Act.  These  contents  included  the  dis¬ 
solution  of  the  marriage  with  Catherine,  and  the 
confirmation  of  the  marriage  with  Anne.  Such  deter¬ 
minations  depended  entirely  upon  domestic  as  opposed 
to  foreign  authority ;  and  this  domestic  authority, 
again,  depended  upon  the  royal  headship.  I  conclude 
it,  therefore,  to  be  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
oath  treated  of  by  Sander  is  the  oath  of  succession. 

As  respects  the  time  when  Fisher  exercised  his  power 
of  persuasion  so  effectually,  Sander  himself  supplies  us 
with  sufficient  means  of  judgment.  He  places  it  in  the 
year  1533  (according  to  the  old  method  of  computation), 


224 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


and  before  the  definitive  sentence  of  the  Pope,  ”  which 
is  also  assigned  to  that  year ;  but  after  the  Act  of  Suc¬ 
cession  had  passed,  t  and  in  direct  connection  with  an 
account  of  a  personal  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon 
Fisher  by  the  King,  who  pointed  out  to  this  prelate  that 
his  obedience  was  limited  by  the  condition  “so  far  as 
the  Word  of  God  allowed.”  Further,  the  passage  shows 
that  Cranmer  was  already  archbishop,  so  that  Sander 
cannot  refer  to  anything  before  the  30th  of  March,  1533, 
the  day  of  his  consecration.  Now  Fisher’s  refusal  to  take 
the  oath  of  succession  is  defined  by  his  Act  of  attainder  J 
for  refusal  to  have  been  on  or  after  the  1st  of  May,  1534. 
But  many  weeks  had  then  elapsed  since  the  passing  of 
the  Act ;  and  Henry,  who  had  obtained  the  statutory 
authority  on  the  23rd  of  March,  named  his  Commis¬ 
sioners  to  enforce  it  on  the  30th. §  The  only  admissible 
conclusion,  upon  these  facts,  as  to  the  question  of  date 
seems  to  be  that  the  King’s  urgency,  and  Fisher’s 
compliance,  belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  period 
between  the  passing  of  the  Act  in  the  month  of  March, 
and  the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  Pope’s  sentence  on 
the  12th  of  April. 

At  first  sight  it  may  appear  strange  that  a  man  of 
Fisher’s  firmness,  character,  and  standing  should  in  so 
short  a  time  have  exhibited  so  radical  a  change  in  his 
own  conduct ;  but  there  had  been,  within  the  compass 
of  that  short  period,  a  change  in  the  circumstances  most 
likely  to  affect  Fisher’s  action,  which  may  go  far  to 
explain  it.  The  bolt,  suspended  for  months  and  years 
in  the  sky  over  England,  had  fallen.  Passing  at  length 


*  Sander,  p.  111.  The  sentence  was  dated  the  23rd  of  March, 
f  Sander,  p.  104.  |  Bridgett,  p.  283.  §  Ibid.  p.  206. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII.  225 

from  the  questions  of  competency  and  jurisdiction  to 
the  merits  of  the  case  of  divorce,  the  Pope  had,  on  the 
23rd  of  March,  definitively  ratified  the  old  marriage  of 
Henry,  and  annulled  the  new.  To  conform  to  the  Act 
of  Succession  would,  from  this  time  forward,  not  only 
have  been  in  conflict  with  Fisher’s  personal  opinion  on 
the  divorce,  which  many  of  his  brother  bishops  did  not 
share ;  it  would  have  pledged  him  to  a  headship  which 
was  no  longer  abstract,  but  which  had  now  been  placed 
in  direct  contradiction  to  the  official  judgment  of  the 
Pope  on  a  matter  of  spiritual  concern.  At  the  first  of 
the  two  periods,  the  Church  of  England  had  not  pro¬ 
nounced  upon  the  marriage,  and  the  Pope  had  not  taken 
the  question  out  of  its  jurisdiction.  At  the  latter  period, 
both  these  positions  were  reversed.  Moreover,  the 
parliamentary  enactment  went  beyond  the  terms  of 
the  convocational  declaration. 

3.  Did  Fisher  himself  take  the  oath,  or  did  he  only 
persuade  those  among  the  bishops  to  take  it  who  were 
most  reluctant?  I  cannot  doubt  that  he  took  it.  ISTo 
other  conclusion  gives  effect  to  the  words  of  Sander,  who 
says  ( necessitati  prsesenti  cedendum  ratus )  not  that  he 
complied  in  part,  but  that  he  complied  simjpliciter.  In 
truth,  to  persuade  others  was  a  greater  compliance  than 
to  swear  himself.  To  take  such  a  course  advisedly 
would  have  been  a  piece  of  baseness,  that  cannot  be 
imputed  to  such  a  man  as  Fisher.  We  should  therefore 
follow  the  statement  of  Burnet,*'  who  says  (with  some 
want  of  distinct  specification  as  to  dates,  but  yet  in  a 
manner  such  as  to  leave  no  room  for  doubt)  “  the  bishops 
did  all  swear  their  alliance  to  the  King,  and  swore  also 


l. 


*  Yol.  i.  p.  330  (ed.  Oxf.  1816). 


226 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VUE 


to  maintain  his  supremacy.”  If  all  the  bishops  swore, 
Fisher  is,  of  course,  included.* 

The  main  argument  now  before  us  has  reference  to 
collective  and  constitutional  authority,  and  does  not 
depend  on  the  action  of  individuals ;  but  it  is  material 
to  trace  the  acts  of  a  prelate  who,  from  the  combined 
force  of  character,  learning,  and  seniority,  seems  to  have 
possessed  a  weight  of  moral  influence  beyond  that  ac¬ 
corded  to  any  other  contemporary  personage  in  England. 

Mr.  Bridgett  j*  well  observes  that  even  deep  students 
of  the  history  of  that  period  in  some  cases  know  of  this 
remarkable  man  no  more  than  a  few  facts  of  his  life, 
and  perhaps  the  details  of  his  death.  I  still  venture 
to  doubt  whether,  even  by  the  work  of  Mr.  Bridgett 
himself,  his  character  has  been  completely  elucidated. 
In  truth,  I  find  in  that  work,  and  in  the  works  of  other 
It oman  Catholic  writers,  the  omission  of  a  material 
element  of  the  case  before  us ;  namely,  a  regard  to  the 
National  Church  in  itself,  as  distinct  from  the  royal 
influence  and  power  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Papal  chair 
on  the  other.  If  I  judge  aright,  this  element  counts  for 
a  great  deal  in  the  history  of  the  period.  A  learned 
divine,  and  a  man  of  austere  life,  Fisher  appears  to  have 
been  totally  exempt  from  the  influences  of  personal 
selfishness  and  ambition.  He  would  not  leave  his  poor 
church  of  Rochester  for  a  richer  one ;  and  even  at  the 
last  he  valued  not,  as  he  said,  the  Cardinal’s  hat  un¬ 
wisely  bestowed  on  him.  But  he  seems  to  have  been 
wanting  in  breadth  of  mind,  and  in  the  faculty  for 

*  Even  if  Fisher  was  excused  from  attendance  in  Parliament,  he 
may  have  seen  the  King,  and  the  words  of  Sander  on  this  part  of 
the  case  (p.  106)  seem  to  imply  that  they  met  personally. 

t  Preface,  p.  vii. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


227 


discerning  the  signs  of  the  times.  He  did  not  see  the 
necessity  of  reforms  which  was  obvious  to  Wolsey,  to 
Warham,  to  Gardiner,  and  to  Tunstal ;  the  last  of 
whom,  at  any  rate,  if  greatly  junior  to  Fisher,  emulated 
him  in  his  Christian  graces.  So  far  as  political  inclina¬ 
tion  went,  Fisher  was  one  of  those  who  would  have 
counted  among  the  Mapadwvo/xayot  of  Aristophanes,  or, 
in  our  own  day,  among  a  Parliamentary  residue,  the 
forlorn  hope  of  Protection,  who  passed,  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  by  the  name  of  “  cannon  balls  ;  ”  from  their 
impassibility,  it  would  appear,  not  from  their  efficacy. 
In  the  year  1529-30,  Bills  were  introduced  into  Parlia¬ 
ment,  which  touched  neither  the  faith  nor  the  discipline 
of  the  Church,  nor  yet  the  Papal  power,  but  sought  to 
deal,  as  Burnet says,  with  “  some  of  the  most  exorbi¬ 
tant  abuses  of  the  clergy,”  touching  probates,  mortuaries, 
pluralities  and  non-residence,  and  the  farming  of  lands 
by  spiritual  persons.  Fisher  f  offered  a  vehement 
opposition  to  these  Bills,  which  he  seems  to  have 
regarded  as  indicating  “lack  of  faith  only,”  and  show¬ 
ing  that  the  mind  of  the  Commons  was  “  nothing  but 
down  with  the  Church.” 

Bearing  this  fact  in  mind,  let  us  weigh  some  incidents 
of  his  subsequent  course.  No  doubt  remains  that  he 
concurred  in  the  Recognition  of  the  royal  headship  in 
1531.  In  1532  came  the  large  concession  with  regard 
to  Canons,  which  is  termed  the  Submission  of  the 
clergy.  Fisher  was  absent,  probably  ill  at  the  time. 
Mr.  Bridgett  says  he  cannot  be  shown  to  have  had 
any  share  in  this  surrender.  But  he  was  formally 


*  Burnet,  i.  159;  Froude’s  ‘Hist.’  i.  248-51  ;  Bridgett,  pp.  181-5. 
f  Bridgett,  pp.  201,  202. 


228 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


consulted  (on  the  6th  of  May,  1532)  by  deputies  from 
the  two  Houses  of  Convocation,  which  were  adjourned 
for  three  days  in  order  to  receive  his  advice.  There  is 
no  record  of  what  it  was.  Had  he  objected,  he  must 
have  made  his  objection  known,  probably  by  formal 
protest.  He  must  surely  be  taken,  then,  as  having  given 
here  also  a  reluctant,  perhaps,  but  honest  assent.  And 
the  upshot  of  the  matter  thus  far  is  that  this  eminently 
dauntless  man,  who  had  proved  in  1529  his  ability  to 
confront  and  denounce  a  prevailing  power,  and  who 
maintained  an  uniform  and  unflinching  resistance  to 
the  divorce,  yet  concurred,  even  if  with  reluctance,  in 
the  Con  vocational  Act  of  1531,  and  made  no  opposition 
to  the  submission  which  followed  in  1532.  The  story 
told  by  Chapuys,|  that  he  complied  in  1531  because  he 
was  threatened  with  being  pitched  into  the  river  if  he 
did  not  comply,  is  totally  at  variance  with  the  resolute 
character  of  the  man,  and  is  evidently  the  mere  gossip 
of  the  day.  The  rational  conclusion  is  that  he  acted 
throughout  for  the  best,  and  according  to  his  conscience. 
Reluctance  of  this  kind  does  not  take  away  the  effect 
of  responsible  concurrence,  nor  the  authority  due  to  it. 
But,  further,  I  am  aware  of  nothing  to  show  that  this 
reluctance  was  grounded  upon  regard  for  the  Papal  pre¬ 
rogatives.  To  this  point  I  shall  presently  recur.  And 
I  pass  now  to  the  main  issue,  which  plainly  turns  upon 
the  nature  and  effect  of  the  Recognition  of  1531  as 
matter  of  law,  both  constitutional  and  ecclesiastical. 

I  will  first,  however,  say  a  word  upon  a  portion  of 
the  Recognition  which  has  not  attracted  much  notice 


*  Collier,  ii.  68. 

f  ‘  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  the  Eighth,’  vol.  v.  No.  112. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII, 


229 


in  the  discussions  upon  it ;  I  mean  the  phrase  which 
declares  the  King  to  be  “unicus  et  supremus  dominus  ” 
of  the  Church.  Mr.  Morris  *  considers  these  words  to 
be  simply  descriptive  of  the  relation  held  to  the  Church 
by  its  feudal  lord.  It  is  at  first  sight  a  plausible  con¬ 
tention  ;  but  the  balance  of  argument  seems  to  be  very 
strongly  against  it.  For  the  King  was  not  feudal  lord 
of  the  Church  at  all ;  but  only  of  particular  fiefs  held  by 
certain  of  its  members.  And,  again,  the  letter  of  Henry 
the  Eighth  to  Tunstal  and  the  Northern  Convocation, 
which  cites  these  words,  may  seem  to  give  them  a  wider 
meaning.  The  King  says  that  they  are  open  to  cavil, 
like  the  words  touching  the  headship,  on  the  ground 
that  Christ  alone  is  “  unicus  Dominus  et  supremus,  as  we 
confess  him  in  the  church  daily.”  |  There  is  a  similar 
piece  of  evidence  against  this  limitation  of  sense  in 
Tunstal’s  own  protest,  namely,  that  he  did  not  so  under¬ 
stand  the  words ;  for,  in  his  protestation,  he  treats 
these  words  as  in  pari  materia  with  the  rest  and  says, 
u  Et  similiter  declarandum  et  exprimendum  puto  verba 
ilia,  scil.  unicurn  et  supremum  dominum,  in  temporalibus 
post  Christum  accipi.”  J  Had  these  words  referred  to 
the  feudal  lordship  Tunstal  would  have  urged  no  such 
argument,  for  the  feudal  lordship  obviously  required  no 
such  limitation.  § 


*  Dublin  Review ,  p.  248.  f  Wilkins,  ‘  Concilia,’  iii.  763. 

X  Ibid.  iii.  747. 

§  I  desire  to  recede  from  the  statement  (article,  p.  8)  that  the 
remarkable  petition  against  annates  proceeded  from  the  clergy,  in  which 
I  simply  followed  Strype,  Wilkins,  and  Blunt  (‘Ecclesiastical  History,’ 
i.  250-253).  Mr.  Gairdner  considers  it  to  be  a  petition  from  Parliament 
(‘  Letters  and  Papers,’  vol.  v.  Nos.  722,  725).  [Upon  another  recon¬ 
sideration,  I  must  withdraw  a  concession  which  was  made  mainly  in 
deference  to  the  high  authority  of  Mr.  Gairdner. —  W.  E.  G.,  1896.] 


230  THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 

It  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Recognition 
in  1531  does  not  stand  alone.  In  1534,  Lee  had  become 
Archbishop  of  York ;  Cranmer  and  Gardiner  had  been 
added  to  the  episcopate  of  the  southern  province.  Ex¬ 
cept  for  these  successions,  made  in  the  usual  form,  the 
personal  composition  of  the  Convocations  continued  as 
it  had  been  in  1531.  Mr.  Morris*  erroneously  states 
that  the  proceeding  in  Convocation  at  this  later  epoch 
was  ‘‘nothing  but  an  answer  by  the  Lower  House”  to  a 
question  concerning  the  Pope.  On  the  contrary,  the 
proceeding  seems  to  have  been  complete  in  itself ;  and  it 
was  beyond  doubt  a  proceeding  in  both  the  Convocations. 

It  was  propounded  to  them,  and  to  the  Universities 
that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  by  the  sacred  Scriptures  has 
no  greater  jurisdiction  in  the  realm  of  England  than 
any  other  foreign  bishop.  To  this  proposition,  on  the 
2nd  of  June,  1534,  the  Convocation  of  York  unanimously 
agreed.  The  unanimity  is  strongly  marked  by  the  words 
used — unanimiter  et  concorditer,  nemine  eorum  discre- 
pante.”  j*  Even  from  this  document  alone  the  previous 
and  concordant  action  of  the  province  of  Canterbury 
might  almost  be  taken  for  granted.  And,  in  this  purely 
anti-Papal  transaction,  there  is  not  a  whisper  of  coercion 
or  of  reluctance. 

But,  on  the  preceding  31st  of  March,  the  vote  of  the 
Lower  House  of  Canterbury  on  the  same  proposition 
had  been  repeated  in  that  Convocation.  £  Thirty-four 
asserted  it,  while  one  doubted  and  four  denied.  The 
document  given  by  Wilkins  is  not  an  ordinary  journal 
of  a  day’s  proceedings,  but  a  summary,  and  probably 
a  contracted,  account  of  the  proceedings  of  many  days. 


*  Dublin  Review,  p.  257.  f  Wilkins,  iii.  782.  J  Ibid.  iii.  769. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


231 


Collier,  however,  cites  the  formal  record  ‘  4  of  the  sense  of 
the  prelates  and  clergy  ”  of  Canterbury  from  the  J ournal 
of  Convocation,*  He  also  cites  from  Wharton  a 
testimony,  according  to  which  it  would  appear  that  this 
renunciation  of  all  Papal  jurisdiction  by  Divine  right — 
this  being  the  nature  of  the  power  which  was  in  question 
- — was  more  formal  and  general  throughout  the  land, 
than  any  other  ecclesiastical  proceeding  of  the  period. 

The  learned  men  of  the  Roman  communion  enjoy 
a  deserved  credit  for  accurate  and  careful  training,  and 
I  must  own  to  some  surprise  at  what  seems  to  me  a 
want  of  precision  in  some  reasonings  of  those  who  have 
offered  replies  to  my  article. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Morris  |  quotes  the  words  of  Bishop 
Stubbs,  which  are  very  weighty  words,  to  the  effect  that 
neither  Fisher,  Warham,  nor  More  would  have  accepted 
the  words  of  1531,  if  they  had  implied  a  rejection  of 
“  Papal  authority ;  ”  and,  later  in  the  article,  my  antago¬ 
nist  finds  that  I  am  under  a  “ prepossession ”  that  “the 
English  clergy  were  really  averse  to  the  Pope  and  to  his 
authority.”  J  His  proof  of  this  prepossession  is  that  I 
speak  of  “that  aversion  to  the  Papal  jurisdiction  which 
had  spread  generally  among  the  English  clergy.”  Can 
he  require  to  be  reminded  that  jurisdiction  is  one  thing 
and  authority  another?  “Jurisdiction”  is  a  technical 
word ;  “  authority  ”  is  not,  and  is  of  far  wider  scope. 
The  oath  of  succession,  as  found  in  Burnet,  speaks  of 
both,  but  the  two  things  are  distinct  though  related. 
For  example,  no  one,  I  presume,  will  refuse  to  admit 
that  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  enjoys  a  certain 


*  Collier,  ‘  Hist.’  ii.  94.  f  Dublin  Review,  p.  250, 

x  Wilkins,  p.  254. 


2.32 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


authority  in  Greece ;  but  in  Greece  he  has  no  juris¬ 
diction  whatever.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  the 
term  jurisdiction  in  its  proper  sense,  drawn  legitimately 
from  its  basis  in  the  word  jus,  is  stamped  ah  initio  with 
the  idea  of  defined  civil  force  and  effect ;  and  cannot  be 
separated  from  this  idea  even  in  such  a  phrase  as 
spiritual  jurisdiction,  though  of  course  the  word  is 
capable,  like  other  words,  of  being  widened  into  a 
second  intention,  and  a  merely  popular  use. 

This  distinction  was  observed  by  the  Church  of 
England,  even  in  the  sixteenth  century.  In  1534,  the 
question  put  to  the  clergy  was  whether  the  Pope  had  by 
Scripture  any  jurisdiction  in  England  beyond  any  other 
foreign  bishop ;  and  when  the  proposition  that  he  had 
none  was  affirmed  by  the  Convocations,  the  answers  in 
both  cases  (as  in  that  of  the  University  of  Oxford)  * 
adhered  strictly  to  the  word  jurisdictio.  In  1562  Art. 
xxxvii.  only  avers  that  “the  Bishop  of  Rome  hath  no 
jurisdiction  in  this  realm  of  England.”  It  might  be 
difficult  to  show  that  the  English  Church  in  any  one 
of  its  formal  Acts  has  ever  touched  the  question  what 
attributes  might  appertain,  or  be  allowed,  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  in  virtue  of  his  Western  patriarchate,  or  even 
of  his  Primacy  as  first  among  the  Patriarchs.!  The 
negation  of  1533—4,  although  it  went  beyond  the  Act  of 
1531,  was  doubly  conditioned;  it  applied  only  to  juris¬ 
dictio,  and  to  jurisdictio  available  in  virtue  of  powers 
conferred  in  Holy  Scripture.  The  probable  intention  of 
the  King  at  and  after  this  time  was  to  make  terms  with 

*  Collier,  ii.  94;  Burnet,  ‘  Records,’  vol.  iii.  Nos.  26,  27;  Palmer, 
‘On  the  Church,’  pt.  ii.  ch.  ii. 

f  It  would  be  a  further  question  what  powers  the  Pope  might  have 
by  allowance  or  consent. — W.  E.  G.,  1896. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


233 


the  Pope.  The  Act  of  1532  respecting  firstfruits,  passed 
after  the  Recognition,  stood  upon  this  footing.*  It  in¬ 
volved  the  contingency  of  a  total  renunciation ;  but,  in 
the  meantime,  it  conditionally  recognised  his  intervention 
even  in  the  appointment  of  English  bishops ;  it  provided 
a  moderate  payment  in  respect  of  the  forms  to  be  ob¬ 
served ;  and  Cranmer  in  1533  was  consecrated  under 
Bulls  from  Rome.  Nor  was  it  wonderful  that  this 
moderation  should  be  observed,  when  we  consider  what 
such  a  man  as  Melanchthon  thought  he  believed ;  that, 
if  other  controversies  could  be  composed,  the  Papal 
primacy,  rationally  handled,  need  not  form  an  obstacle 
to  the  restoration  of  Christian  unity. 

And  the  fact  remains  unshaken  that  these  declarations, 
made  by  the  representative  body  of  the  English  Church, 
never  were  repealed.  The  allegations  of  Mr.  Morris  are 
two.  Eirst,t  that  there  was  a  proceeding  in  the  first 
year  of  Mary  against  the  Statute  of  1534.  But  that 
proceeding  falls  utterly  short  of  the  exigencies  of  Mr. 
Morris’s  argument.  It  was  not  the  Act  of  Convocation, 
but  only  of  the  Lower  House.  It  was  a  Lower  House 
personally  remodelled  under  civil  authority.  And, 
finally,  it  touched  neither  the  acknowledgment  of  1531 
nor  the  negation  of  1534,  but  only  the  Statute  of  that 
year.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  Convocational  action  at 
any  date,  which  has  aimed  at  undoing  the  legislative 
proceedings  of  the  Church  during  the  reign  of  Henry  the 
Eighth. 

Mr.  Morris,  indeed,  also  dwells  upon  the  national 
Synod,  which  in  November  1555  (when  nearly  half  the 
reign  had  already  passed  away)  Pole  obtained  authority 


*  23  Henry  VIII.  c,  20,  secs,  ii.,  iii. 


f  Dublin  Review,  p.  256. 


234 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


to  call,  as  a  Synod  having  for  its  mission  to  reform  the 
Church  of  England,  ‘ 1  which  by  the  calamity  of  the  late 
schism  was  greatly  deformed  in  doctrine  and  morals.” 
But  these  words  are  not  the  words  of  the  Synod ;  *  they 
are  simply  the  words  of  Cardinal  Pole.  And  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  Synod,  which  seem  to  have  been  speedily 
arrested,  but  which  are  on  record,!  involve  no  condem¬ 
nation,  and  no  repeal,  of  anything  done  ecclesiastically 
in  the  preceding  reign. 

Without  doubt,  there  must  have  been  very  strong 
reasons  of  policy  which  caused  so  remarkable  an  absten¬ 
tion  :  an  abstention  continued,  as  1  have  shown,  I  believe 
with  perfect  accuracy,  into  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  by  the 
collective  body  of  Convocation  in  the  province  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  and  by  both  the  Houses  in  the  province  of  York. 
Perhaps  it  was  that  Gardiner  and  the  other  prelates,  who 
had  shared  in  proceedings  under  Henry,  were  not  willing 
that  their  own  solemn  acts  should  be  directly  annulled. 
Perhaps  it  was  that,  as  statesmen,  they  knew  that  it 
would  be  dangerous  to  stir  the  public  feeling  by  direct 
assertions  on  the  part  of  the  Church  against  the  regal 
and  on  behalf  of  the  Papal  power.  Perhaps  the  Marian 
councillors  speculated  a  little  on  the  age  of  the  Queen. 
She  was  not  very  far  advanced  in  life.  Her  reign  might 
well  have  proved  to  be  of  considerable  duration.  It 
may  have  been  thought  wise  to  postpone  the  final  stage 
of  ecclesiastical  reaction  until  the  heads  of  the  reform¬ 
ing  party  should  have  been  forgotten,  and  the  realm 
thoroughly  habituated  to  the  restoration  of  the  Latin 
forms  of  worship.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  fact  remains. 
By  circuitous  means  the  dominant  party  cut  off  all  that 


*  Wilkins,  iv.  151. 


f  Ibid.  iv.  131, 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


235 


was  for  the  moment  operative  in  the  prior  Acts,  but 
they  left  the  Acts  themselves.  Thus  they  left  it  free  to 
Queen  Elizabeth,  on  her  accession,  by  simply  repealing 
the  Parliamentary  settlement  of  Mary,  to  place  herself 
face  to  face  with  the  unrepealed  proceedings  of  the 
Church  under  Henry  the  Eighth.  She  then,  by  a 
substantive  enactment  declaring  her  governorship  of  the 
Church,  which  manifestly  lay  within  and  not  beyond 
the  declarations  of  1531  and  1534,  placed  herself  in  a 
condition  to  execute  the  Church  law,  as  well  as  the 
State  law,  against  all  who  might,  if  challenged,  refuse  to 
accept  that  governorship. 

I  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  reasons  alleged  by 
those  who,  aware  that  there  has  been  no  repeal  of  the 
Convocational  Acts,  think  that  they  can  account  for  the 
fact,  and  can  deprive  them  of  their  presumptive  signi¬ 
ficance.  These  pleas  appear  to  be  as  follows  : — 

Firstly,  that  the  Recognition  of  1531  was  obtained  by 
terrorism,  which  amounts  to  coercion ;  and  it  is  there¬ 
fore  void. 

Secondly,  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Marian  Convo¬ 
cation,  though  they  did  not  involve  the  repeal  of  the 
Recognition,  yet  were  equivalent  to  a  repeal. 

Thirdly,  that  the  Recognition  was  so  insignificant, 
that  it  did  not  require  repeal,  or  notice  of  any  kind. 

As  to  the  first  contention,  I  must  observe  that  in  the 
whole  field  of  political  argumentation  there  is  no  more 
perilous,  I  had  almost  written  more  pestilent,  doctrine 
than  that  which  exempts  persons  in  authority  from 
obligation  to  their  acts  and  words  on  the  plea  of 
coercion.  I  know  of  no  worse  fault  in  the  kingship 
of  the  past,  than  its  disposition  to  avail  itself  of  this 
plea,  and  thus  to  obtain  release  from  its  covenants. 


236 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


Even  darker  is  the  case,  if  darker  may  be,  when  the 
doctrine  is  applied  to  bodies,  which  are  obviously  less 
liable,  than  individuals,  to  the  extremes  of  compulsory 
pressure.  And  most  of  all  in  the  case  of  bodies  en¬ 
trusted  with  functions  purporting  to  be  divine. 

Of  course  it  remains  true  that  there  is  gross  injustice 
in  the  fact  of  terrorism,  and  loss  of  moral  authority  on 
one  side  or  on  both.  But  there  is  no  proof  of  what  can 
justly  be  called  terrorism  in  the  case  before  us,  though 
there  is  evidence  of  pertinacity  on  the  part  of  the  King, 
who  doubtless  was  looking  forward  to  ulterior  develop¬ 
ments.  Let  us  examine  the  facts  of  the  procedure, 
about  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  there  is  now  no  material 
dispute.  I  take  the  account  from  Collier.* 

In  the  first  form  of  the  demand  the  King  was  to  be 
“protector  et  supremum  caput.”  This  the  clergy  would 
not  accept.  After  three  days,  the  King  proposed  to  add 
to  the  foregoing  the  words  “  post  Deum.”  This  again 
met  with  no  acceptance.  Then  came  in  the  limitation 
“quantum  per  Christi  legem  licet.”  The  declaration 
was  accepted  unanimously,  with  this  limitation ;  and  it 
also  met  the  wishes  of  the  King.  It  has  always  been 
supposed  that  the  limiting  words  were  proposed  by 
Warharn.  Mr.  Bridgett  |  prefers,  on  authority  which 
seems  to  me  highly  apocryphal,  to  ascribe  them  to 
Fisher  himself,  into  whose  mouth  Hall,  his  biographer, 
puts  a  speech  with  the  air  of  a  modern  report.  In  this 
speech,  he  advises  them  to  make  the  recognition,  in 
its  qualified  form,  as  a  choice  of  evils.  Now  the  notion 
of  terrorism  is  really  incompatible  both  with  the  previous 
refusals,  and  with  the  strictly  graduated  and  deliberative 


*  Vol.  ii.  pp.  62,  63. 


f  ‘Life  of  Blessed  John  Fisher,’  pp.  201,  202. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


237 


process,  by  which  an  agreement  was  arrived  at.  That 
Fisher  was  the  adviser  is  highly  improbable,  for  he  was 
a  man  of  aye  and  no,  not  of  compromises  and  expedients. 
That  his  assent  was  reluctant  we  have  no  evidence 
warranting  assertion  or  denial.  That  his  reluctance  was 
shared  by  the  clergy  we  have  no  contemporary  evidence 
except  that  of  Chapuys,  the  envoy  of  the  emperor.* 
But  we  must  remember  that  it  is  his  incessant  endeavour 
to  encourage  Charles  to  vigorous  and  even  military 
action  on  Mary’s  behalf,  by  representing  that  opinion  is 
everywhere  against  the  King.  No  doubt  it  became 
widely  adverse,  when  Henry  proceeded  to  the  repudiation 
of  Catherine  after  twenty-five  years  of  married  life,  and 
even  anticipated  it  by  disgusting  exhibitions  of  himself 
in  company  with  Ann  Boleyn.  But  there  is  no  proof 
whatever  of  an  adverse  public  opinion  either  at  the 
period,  or  on  the  subject,  of  the  Recognition. 

The  speech  attributed  to  Fisher,  which  refers  to 
coercion  and  disinclination,  makes  no  reference  to  the 
Pope.  Neither  does  it  explain  what  it  was  that  the 
clergy  feared.  This  is,  however,  probably  explained  by 
the  protest  of  Tunstal,  and  by  the  explanatory  argument 
of  Henry  in  reply.!  In  neither  of  these  is  there  a 
word  either  respecting  danger  to  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Pope,  or  tending  to  save  those  prerogatives.  They 
make  it  plain  that  the  object  put  forward  as  requiring 
care  and  defence  was  the  prerogative  not  of  the  Pope, 
but  of  Christ.  This  indeed  would  be  sufficiently  shown 
by  the  fact,  even  if  it  stood  alone,  that  Tunstal  himself 
had  already  published  his  work  against  the  power  of  the 

*  ‘Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  the  Eighth,’  vol.  v.  Nos.  105, 120, 124. 

f  Wilkins,  iii.  745. 


238 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


Pope  in  England.  The  action  of  1531,  then,  has  all 
the  appearance  of  a  serious  deliberative  proceeding ; 
and,  if  there  be  any  semblance  of  fear  or  of  reluctance, 
it  has  no  regard  to  the  maintenance  of  the  Papal  power, 
but  only  to  the  just  independence,  within  her  own 
proper  sphere,  of  the  National  Church.  Of  this  we 
have  a  further  and  conspicuous  proof  in  1534.  In  1531, 
when  there  is  no  direct  reference  to  the  Pope,  and  the 
immediate  question  is  of  the  National  local  Church, 
there  is  a  degree  of  hesitation  and  reluctance.  In  1534, 
when  the  Papal  jurisdiction  is  directly  assailed  and 
denied,  and  no  word  is  used  which  could  be  prejudicial 
to  the  Church,  we  hear  nothing  of  coercion,  and  nothing 
of  unwillingness  on  the  part  of  even  a  single  bishop 
(Fisher  being  in  prison).  Can  there  be  a  more  conclu¬ 
sive  indication  that  the  men  who  thus  cheerfully  com¬ 
plied  in  1534,  only  the  Pope  being  concerned,  when 
they  stickled  in  1531  for  special  forms  of  limitation  did 
it  on  behalf  of  the  Church,  of  which  the  liberties  were 
directly  in  question  ? 

As  to  the  second  of  the  three  contentions,  my  reply  is 
that  there  may  be  repeal  in  direct  words,  or  through 
overriding  and  contradicting  a  previous  judgment  by  a 
later  one ;  but  that,  short  of  such  alteration  or  contra¬ 
diction  by  an  authority  equivalent  to  that  of  the 
original  Act,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  equiva¬ 
lent  of  repeal.  The  performance  or  allowance,  in  the 
face  of  the  original  instrument,  of  administrative  pro¬ 
ceedings  apparently  or  even  really  inconsistent  with  it 
cannot  destroy  its  authority.  The  legislative  power  is 
essentially  the  highest  power,  and  its  Acts  cannot  be 
invalidated  except  by  its  own  authority.  It  is,  of 
course,  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  was  not  an 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


239 


absolute  opposition  between  the  declarations  of  1531 
and  1534,  and  the  exercise  of  Papal  power  in  England. 
Under  that  of  1534,  it  might  have  been  exercised  as  a 
power  of  ecclesiastical  though  not  of  Scriptural  appoint¬ 
ment.  Under  that  of  1531,  it  might  have  been  exercised 
by  allowance  of  the  realm  through  its  constituted 
authorities  ;  by  option,  in  short,  and  arrangement,  but 
not  by  compulsion  or  command.  There  was  therefore 
an  opportunity,  so  far  as  the  Church  under  Mary  was 
concerned,  of  playing  with  the  subject.  It  is  sometimes 
thought  politic  to  wink  at  disobedience  to  an  Act 
without  or  before  proceeding  to  repeal  it,  but  those 
who  deem  it  proper  and  wise  to  play  such  a  game  must 
take  their  chance  of  themselves  disappearing  from  the 
scene,  and  leaving  the  Act  in  full  force  for  their  successors 
to  deal  with. 

But,  according  to  Mr.  Mivart,*  who  holds  so  high  a 
place  in  the  world  of  natural  science,  the  Act  of  Convo¬ 
cation  was  one  which  might  naturally  and  properly  be 
let  alone  by  both  of  the  parties  whom  it  concerned ;  by 
the  friends  of  the  Papal  system,  because  it  was  ultra 
vires ,  and  therefore  ipso  facto  null  and  void  ;  by  the 
friends  of  royal  power,  because  in  their  view  it  was 
“  superfluous  ”  and  “  an  idle  act.”  As  to  the  first  plea, 
I  admit  that,  according  to  the  doctrine  now  recently 
established,  the  Convocation  would  have  been  incompe¬ 
tent  to  determine  anything  of  any  kind  against  the 
Pope.  But  (1)  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  a 
single  bishop  under  Henry  held  that  doctrine,  while  we 
know  positively  that  many,  including  Gardiner  and 
Tunstal,  did  not ;  (2)  this  act  cannot  be  fully  measured, 


*  Tablet  newspaper,  Dec.  15,  1888. 


240 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


for  the  purpose  of  the  present  argument,  without  taking 
into  view  the  responses  of  1534.  Both  were  perfectly 
canonical  in  form.  Both  unquestionably  formed  part  of 
the  ecclesiastical  law  of  England.  As  part  of  the  local 
law,  they  had  a  local  force,  which  could  not  be  in  the 
least  degree  abated  by  any  proceedings  not  having  a 
legislative  character,  and  there  was  no  proceeding, 
either  of  Convocation  or  of  Synod,  having  such  a 
character,  in  the  reign  of  Mary.  Mr.  Mivart  finds  it 
necessary  to  say  of  my  argument  that  it  “  is  surely  as 
strange  a  perversion  of  ingenuity  as  was  ever  invented 
by  an  unscrupulous  lawyer  to  defend  a  position  utterly 
incapable  of  any  straightforward  defence.”  Declara¬ 
tions  such  as  this  would  perhaps,  in  the  political  world, 
be  called  bluster ;  but  I  should  be  sorry  to  apply  such  a 
term  to  a  writer  so  distinguished  in  his  proper  line. 
Convocation  might,  as  he  says,  be  “  impotent  to  restore 
that  which  never  had  been  abolished,”  but  it  was  not 
impotent  to  cancel  errors  in  its  own  record. 

The  other  horn  of  his  dilemma  is  even  less  formidable, 
as  we  have  the  clearest  historical  proof  that  the  regal  or 
political  party  did  the  very  things  which  Mr.  Mivart 
says  they  might  safely,  and  did,  forbear  from  doing.  It 
is  an  elementary  fact  of  our  history  that  high  importance 
was  attached  to  the  action  of  the  Convocations.  The 
King  thought  it  important,  for  he  pressed  for  it  with 
eagerness  and  tenacity,  and  he  personally  took  up  the 
argument  with  Tunstal,  as  he  had  done  with  Luther. 
The  clergy  thought  it  important,  for  they  resolutely 
refused  certain  forms  (even  while  under  the  threat  of 
prsemunire),  and  agreed  only  when  their  scruples  had 
been  met.  Finally  the  Legislature  *  thought  it  impor- 


*  24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12,  1832. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


241 


tant,  for  the  Statute  of  Appeals  was  framed  in  complete 
accordance  with  it,  and  the  Statute  of  Headship  * 
recited  it  in  its  preamble.  I  do  not  deny  for  a  moment 
that  Henry,  in  his  later  proceedings,  rode  roughshod 
over  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  both  as  an  historic 
institution  and  as  a  Christian  society ;  but  irregularities 
of  government  are  one  thing,  formal  legislation  is 
another.  The  legislative  proceedings  of  the  reign  of 
Mary  were  confined  to  the  civil  sphere  ;  and,  if  we  view 
its  administration  as  a  whole,  nothing  in  the  entire 
picture  is  more  curious  than  its  highly  Erastian 
character. 

There  is  indeed  an  argument  not  yet  noticed,  which 
respect  for  its  author  forbids  me  wholly  to  pass  by.  Mr. 
Morris  |  holds  that  a  statement  parenthetically  made 
cannot  be  a  legal  enactment,  and  that  if  it  were  found 
in  the  sentence  of  a  judge  it  would  only  be  an  obiter 
dictum.  There  seems  here  to  be  much  confusion.  An 
obiter  dictum ,  as  I  understand  it,  is  an  opinion  beside 
the  purpose  of  the  instrument  in  which  the  opinion  is 
given,  and  is  more  commonly  found  in  a  speech  than  in 
a  formal  sentence.  The  question  whether  this  or  that 
were  an  obiter  dictum  would  not  be  in  the  smallest 
degree  affected  by  its  being  inside  or  outside  of  brackets. 
What  a  parenthesis  contains  is  grammatically  capable 
of  severance  from  the  sentence  in  which  it  is  found,  but 
its  contents  have  as  full  force  in  regard  to  their  sub¬ 
stance  as  if  there  were  no  use  of  parenthetical  signs  at 
all.  To  say  that  the  assertion  is  beside  the  purpose  of 
the  instrument  is  to  beg  the  question  what  was  the 
purpose ;  whether  the  purpose  was  the  single  one  of 

*  26  Hen.  VIII.  e.  1,  1534.  f  Dublin  Review ,  p.  248. 

I.  R 


242 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


granting  the  subsidy,  or  the  double  one  of  accepting  the 
supremacy  together  with  the  grant  of  the  subsidy.  The 
form  of  expression  is  “  recognoscimus.”  It  declares,  but 
it  does  not  create,  for  the  province  of  Canterbury  could 
not  create  an  attribute  for  the  King  of  the  realm,  nor 
could  it  put  forward  in  the  character  of  a  novelty 
what  it  meant  to  recognise  as  having  existed  from 
immemorial  time. 

In  opposition  to  the  argument  of  unimportance,  which 
seems  to  me  the  strangest  of  all  contentions  ever 
imported  into  this  part  of  our  constitutional  history,  I 
will  in  conclusion  give  some  proofs  that  the  Convoca- 
tional  proceeding  now  directly  in  question  was  one  of 
great  weight  and  significance. 

First,  the  Recognition  of  1531  was  an  Act  of  unusual 
importance  and  solemnity,  because  it  was  not  the  mere 
establishment  of  a  certain  legal  doctrine  which  might  be 
affirmed  to-day  and  denied  to-morrow,  and  which  was 
without  authority  both  before  the  affirmation  and  after 
the  denial ;  but  it  was  the  assertion  and  the  recognition 
of  a  prerogative  descended  from  immemorial  time,  in 
lawful  existence  before  as  well  as  after  the  enactment. 
In  order  to  get  rid  of  the  judicial  effect  of  such  an 
enactment  as  this,  its  repeal  was  necessary ;  but 
further,  its  mere  repeal  would  have  been  insufficient. 

We  have  an  analogous  case  of  great  interest  in  the 
civil  legislation  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which  explains 
my  meaning  and,  I  think,  irrefragably  confirms  my 
position. 

In  the  year  1719  a  declaratory  Act  was  passed  in 
England,  which  asserted  the  right  of  Parliament  to 
make  laws  for  the  government  of  Ireland.  In  1782 
this  Act  was  repealed.  But  the  repeal  did  not  satisfy 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


243 


the  vigilance  of  Irish  patriotism.  Flood  argued,  that 
the  withdrawal  of  this  particular  assertion  of  the  right 
did  not  destroy  the  right  itself,  nor  preclude  its  reasser¬ 
tion.  His  argument  prevailed;  and  in  the  year  1783 
another  Act  was  passed  to  assert  the  contradictory  of 
the  proposition  contained  in  the  Act  of  1719.  This 
fresh  Act  declared  that  the  sole  right  of  making  laws 
for  Ireland  resided  in  the  King,  Lords,  and  Commons  of 
Ireland. 

So  also  it  ought  to  have  been  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  in  order  to  make  good  the  argument  of  my 
assailants.  There  ought  to  have  been  both  a  repeal  of 
the  express  assertion  made  by  the  Convocation  of  1531 
for  the  present  existence  of  a  certain  right,  and  a 
contradiction  of  the  far  more  important  implied  assertion 
that  it  had  always  existed.  There  was  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other. 

Secondly,  the  Act  of  1531  derived  a  special  impor¬ 
tance  from  the  authority  and  weight  of  the  men  who 
concurred  in  passing  it.  Warham  has  received  the 
glowing  eulogium  of  Erasmus.  Tunstal,  “  a  spirit  with¬ 
out  spot,”  was  a  person  of  eminent  learning  and  ability, 
and  one  of  the  best  men  of  the  sixteenth  century.  High 
praise  was  bestowed  upon  him  in  the  sermon  preached 
at  his  funeral  after  the  Elizabethan  settlement  ;  and 
his  protestation  on  behalf,  not  of  the  Pope  but  of  the 
Church  in  the  Northern  Convocation,  shows  the  courage 
as  well  as  the  deliberation  with  which  he  acted.  The 
Recognition  had  the  subsequent  adhesion  of  Gardiner, 
who  became  a  bishop  in  December,  1531.  He  was  one 
of  the  great  statesmen  of  England,  and  to  him  we  owe 
it  that  foreign  influences  did  not  much  more  largely 
predominate  in  the  council  of  Mary.  As  to  Fisher,  I 


244 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


will  only  further  say  that  already  in  the  year  1530  he 
had  been  imprisoned  for  his  conduct  in  defence  of  the 
Church,*  and  he  had  declared  himself  ready  to  die 
rather  than  assent  to  the  divorce.  This  declaration  of 
his  (writes  the  secretary  who  served  Campeggio  f )  has 
created  a  great  stir,  for  he  is  in  such  repute  that  his 
opposition  would  be  fatal  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
marriage. 

It  may  be  said  that  Warham  before  his  death  in 
1532  made  a  notarial  protestation  on  behalf  of  the 
Church  of  Canterbury,  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
See  of  Rome.  But  this  protestation,  which  did  not 
nominatim  point  to  anything  that  had  been  done,  was 
expressly  confined  to  statutes  of  the  realm.  J  It  did  not 
include  Convocational  Acts ;  and,  as  we  know  from  the 
case  of  Tunstal  that  there  was  a  power  of  protesting  in 
such  cases,  we  are  obliged  to  infer  that  Warham  to  the 
last  saw  nothing  in  the  recognition  of  1531  which  he 
desired  to  retract  or  qualify. 

Thirdly,  this  act  of  Convocation  is  of  special  authority, 
because  it  and  it  alone  among  the  critical  proceedings 
of  the  sixteenth  century  emanates  from  a  Convocation 
which  had  not  been  tampered  with.  The  Convocations 
of  Edward  the  Sixth,  of  Mary,  and  of  Elizabeth  had 
been  altered  in  their  composition  by  the  imprisonment 
or  deprivation  of  obnoxious  persons  before  they  were 
put  into  motion.  They  differ  from  the  Convocation  of 
1531,  as  the  Long  Parliament  after  the  application  of 
Pride’s  purge  differs  from  the  Long  Parliament  before 


*  Bridgett’s  ‘  Life  of  Blessed  John  Fisher,’  pp.  183,  190. 
f  ‘  Monumenta  Vaticana  ’  (Lammer),  pp.  33,  34. 

J  Wilkins,  iii.  746. 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 


245 


it.  They  were,  in  fact,  packed  Convocations ;  while  the 
Convocation  of  1531  consisted  entirely  of  persons,  who 
had  attained  their  respective  places  in  regular  course, 
and  without  reference  to  the  controversies  of  the  day, 
or  the  exigencies  of  political  convenience. 


VIII. 


PROFESSOR  HUXLEY  AND  THE  SWINE- 

MIRACLE.* 

1891. 

The  controversy,  in  which  this  paper  has  to  take  its 
place,  arose  out  of  a  statement,  indeed  a  boast,  as  I 
understood  it,  by  Professor  Huxley, f  that  the  adepts  in 
natural  science  were  assailing  the  churches  with  weapons 
of  precision,  and  that  their  opponents  had  only  anti¬ 
quated  and  worthless  implements  to  employ  in  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  defence.  I  took  upon  me  to  impeach  at  certain 
points  the  precision  of  the  Professor’s  own  weapons.]; 
Upon  one  of  those  points,  the  miracle  of  the  swine  at 
Gadara,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  he  had  given  us 
assumption  instead  of  proof  upon  what  he  thinks  the 
vital  question,  whether  the  keeping  of  the  swine  was  an 
innocent  and  lawful  occupation.  He  has  now  offered 
an  elaborate  attempt  at  proof  that  such  was  its  cha¬ 
racter.  The  smallest  indication  of  such  an  attempt  in 
the  original  article  would  have  sufficed  entirely  to  alter 


*  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
f  Nineteenth  Century ,  July,  1890,  p.  22. 

X  ‘Impregnable  Rock  of  Holy  Scripture,’  p.  260. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


247 


the  form  of  my  observation,  which  would  then  have 
been  what  it  will  now  be ;  not  that  he  offers  no  argu¬ 
ment,  but  that  his  argument  is  unsound  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  to  the  end. 

Of  that  considerable  portion  of  his  article  which  is 
devoted  to  sneers,  imputations,  and  lectures  for  my 
profit,  I  shall  take  no  notice  whatever.  The  question 
of  my  guilt  or  innocence  is  too  insignificant,  and  even 
the  question  whether  Mr.  Huxley  does  or  does  not 
always  use  weapons  of  precision  might  hardly  warrant 
a  prolongation  of  the  warfare.  But  the  personal  action 
of  our  Lord  appertains  to  the  basis  of  the  Christian 
revelation,  and  to  impugn  it  successfully  in  any  point  is 
to  pierce  the  innermost  heart  of  every  Christian.  ISTo 
inquiry,  therefore,  can  be  too  painstaking  which  helps 
to  carry  such  a  question  to  a  conclusive  issue. 

I  must,  however,  in  passing,  make  the  confession  that 
I  did  not  state  with  accuracy,  as  I  ought  to  have  done, 
the  precise  form  of  the  accusation.  I  treated  it  as  an 
imputation  on  the  action  of  our  Lord  :  Mr.  Huxley 
replies  that  it  is  only  an  imputation  on  the  narrative  of 
three  Evangelists  respecting  Him.  The  difference  from 
his  point  of  view  is  probably  material,  and  I  therefore 
regret  that  I  overlooked  it.  From  the  standing  ground 
of  those  who  receive  the  Scriptures,  it  is  not  so  consider¬ 
able.  That  Christ,  who  is  not  only  the  object  of  imita¬ 
tion,  love,  and  worship,  but  the  very  food  and  life  of 
Christians,  is  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  In  a  sense 
relative  yet  not  untrue,  they  may  almost  be  called  “  the 
brightness  of  His  glory  and  the  express  image  of  His 
person.” #  If  the  Gospels  are  put  on  their  trial  as 


*  Heb.  i.  3. 


248 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


literary  documents,  and  if  a  legitimate  though  mordent 
criticism  can  successfully  impugn  any  portion  of  them, 
we  cannot  complain,  and  must  take  our  chance.  But 
when  their  contents  are  summarily  condemned  and 
rejected  on  a  charge  of  intrinsic  unworthiness  and 
immorality,  upon  no  higher  authority  than  that  of  the 
private  judgment  of  this  or  that  individual,  then,  and  so 
long  as  we  are  dealing  with  a  portion  of  the  attested 
portraiture,  an  arraignment  of  them  becomes,  at  least  in 
my  view,  more  hard  to  distinguish  from  an  arraignment 
of  Him  whom  they  pourtray.  Told,  and  told  in  detail,  by 
all  the  three  Synoptics,  the  miracle  of  the  demoniac  and 
the  swine  does  not  well  bear  severance  from  the  staple 
of  the  biography.  Nor,  indeed,  is  it  so  severed  by  Mr. 
Huxley,"  who  frankly  treats  it  as  involving  at  large  the 
authority  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  In  itself,  it  is  un¬ 
doubtedly  of  the  utmost  significance,  on  account  of  the 
questions  which  it  raises.  One  of  these  is  the  large 
subject  of  demoniacal  possession,  on  which  I  do  not  pre¬ 
sume  to  enter.  Another  is  whether  our  Saviour  in 
answering  the  prayer  of  the  evil  spirits  by  “  saying  unto 
them,  Go,”  became  a  co-operator  in  the  destruction  of 
the  swine.  This  has  been  contested,  but  I  pass  by  the 
contest,  and  for  argument’s  sake  at  least  admit  the 
affirmative.  Then  there  remains  the  further  question  ; 
whether  the  beneficent  ministry  of  our  Lord  on  earth 
included  in  this  instance  the  infliction  of  heavy  injury 
upon  certain  individuals,  the  owners,  or  keepers  and 
owners,  of  the  swine,  by  the  destruction  of  their  pro¬ 
perty  lawfully  and  innocently  held  ? 

Mr.  Huxley  observes  that  the  Evangelists  do  not 


*  Nineteenth  Century,  December,  1890,  p.  968. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


249 


betray  any  consciousness  of  the  moral  and  legal  diffi¬ 
culties  involved  in  the  question.  But  if  the  Evangelists 
believed  that  our  Lord  was  dealing  in  this  case  with 
Hebrews,  or  with  persons  bound  by  the  law  of  Moses, 
then  for  them,  believers  in  the  Messiah,  there  was  no 
legal  or  moral  difficulties  at  all. 

There  are,  indeed,  those  who  have  been  content  to 
rest  the  case  on  the  absolute  right  of  the  Deity  to  deal 
at  will  with  the  property  of  the  creatures  whom  He  has 
made.  “  Of  thine  own  have  we  given  Thee  !  ”  Com¬ 
mentators  are  far  from  uniform.*  But,  as  it  appears  to 
me,  the  question  does  not  come  before  us  quite  in  this 
shape.  Apart  from  any  such  contention,  it  is  no  trivial 
inquiry  whether  we  have  to  record  in  this  case  the 
existence  of  an  exception  to  the  general  character  of  our 
Lord’s  ministry,  which  was  both  beneficent  and  law- 
abiding.  So  far  as  regards  the  taking  of  animal  life, 
the  matter  need  not  be  discussed.  It  was  life  destined 
to  be  taken,  taken  by  violence  and  probably  with 
greater  pain.  It  may  have  been,  undoubtedly,  the 
highest  practical  assertion  of  power,  which  is  recorded 
by  the  Evangelists.  But  there  is  a  remaining  question, 
namely,  whether  this  assertion  of  power  was  such  as  to 
involve  serious  injury  to  the  proprietary  rights  of  inno¬ 
cent  persons.  This  is  the  character  which  Professor 
Huxley  stamps  upon  the  narrative  ;  justly,  as  he  thinks, 
but,  as  I  hold,  in  defiance  of  historical  authority,  and  of 
the  laws  of  rational  and  probable  interpretation.  I  can¬ 
not,  however,  but  agree  with  him  on  two  points  which 
appear  to  be  important :  namely,  first,  that  the  excision 

*  Consult  Cornelius  k  Lapide,  and  his  references  to  others,  on 
Matt.  viii.  28  -34.  Thomas  Scott’s  commentary  is  worthy  of  notice. 


250 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


on  moral  grounds  of  this  narrative  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  affects  their  credit  as  a  whole,  and,  secondly, 
that  it  is  material  to  know  whether  the  act  recorded 
involved  the  infliction  of  a  heavy  penalty  upon  conduct 
in  itself  innocent. 

The  first  question  that  arises  in  approaching  this 
inquiry  is,  where  did  the  miracle  take  place  1  And  I  do 
not  well  understand  how  Mr.  Huxley,  or  his  authorities, 
have  so  readily  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  very 
existence  of  any  place  named  Gergesa  is  very  question¬ 
able."  Origen  was  a  learned  man,  of  critical  mind,  and 
he  resided  for  a  large  part  of  his  life  in  Palestine,  and 
travelled  there  only  two  centuries  after  the  time  of  our 
Lord.f  He  tells  us  expressly  these  three  things  : — 

1.  That  there  was  an  ancient  city  named  Gergesa  on 
the  Lake  of  Tiberias. 

2.  That,  bordering  on  the  water,  there  was  a  precipi¬ 
tous  descent,  which  it  appears,  or  is  proved  (SecKwrai), 
that  the  swine  descended. 

3.  That  Gadara  is  indeed  a  city  of  Judnea,  with  very 
famous  baths,  but  has  no  precipitous  ground  in  the 
vicinity  of  water.  J 

This  statement  from  such  a  source,  at  such  a  date, 
appears  to  require  a  treatment  much  more  careful  than 
the  dictum  that  the  existence  of  Gergesa  is  “  very 
questionable.”  I  admit,  however,  my  obligation  under 
the  circumstances  to  inquire  also,  and  fully,  into  the 
case  of  Gadara. 

Let  me  now  summarily  point  out  what  I  conceive  to 

*  Nineteenth  Century ,  December,  1890,  p.  972. 

f  See  also  M‘Clellan’s  ‘New  Testament,’  on  Matt.  viii.  28,  for  the 
testimony  of  St.  Jerome. 

J  Orig.  ‘  Comment,  in  Joann.’  p.  145. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


251 


be  the  main  sources  of  error,  which,  taken  together, 
vitiate  the  entire  argument  of  Professor  Huxley. 

1.  Throughout  the  paper  he  confounds  together  what 
I  had  distinguished,  namely,  the  city  of  Gadara  and  the 
vicinage  attached  to  it,  not  as  a  mere  pomoeriim,  but  as 
a  rural  district. 

2.  He  more  fatally  confounds  the  local  civil  govern 
ment  and  its  following,  including,  perhaps,  the  whole 
wealthy  class  and  those  attached  to  it,  with  the  ethnical 
character  of  the  general  population. 

3.  His  one  item  of  direct  evidence  as  to  the  Gentile 
character  of  the  city  refers  only  to  the  former  and  not 
to  the  latter. 

4.  He  fatally  confounds  the  question  of  political  party 
with  those  of  nationality  and  of  religion,  and  assumes 
that  those  who  took  the  side  of  Rome  in  the  factions 
that  prevailed  could  not  be  subject  to  the  Mosaic  law. 

5.  His  examination  of  the  text  of  Josephus  is  alike 
one-sided,  inadequate,  and  erroneous. 

6.  Finally,  he  sets  aside,  on  grounds  not  critical  or 
historical,  but  purely  subjective,  the  primary  historical 
testimony  on  the  subject,  namely  that  of  the  three 
Synoptic  Evangelists,  who  write  as  contemporaries,  and 
deal  directly  with  the  subject,  neither  of  which  is  done 
by  any  other  authority. 

7.  And  he  treats  the  entire  question,  in  the  narrowed 
form  in  which  it  arises  upon  secular  testimony,  as  if  it 
were  capable  of  a  solution  so  clear  and  summary  as  to 
warrant  the  use  of  the  extremest  weapons  of  contro¬ 
versy  against  those  who  presume  to  differ  from  him. 

Our  main  question,  then,  is  the  lawfulness  and  inno¬ 
cence  of  the  employment  of  the  swineherds.  The 
ethnical  character  of  Gadara  and  of  its  district  derives 


252  THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 

its  interest  from  its  relation  to  that  main  question.  In 
my  opinion,  not  formed  without  an  attempt  at  full 
examination,  there  is  no  historical  warrant  for  doubting 
that  the  swineherds  were  persons  bound  by  the  Mosaic 
law.  In  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Huxley,*  “  the  proof  that 
Gadara  was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  Gentile  and 
not  a  Jewish  city,  is  complete.”  And,  again,  j*  Gadara 
was,  “for  Josephus,  just  as  much  a  Gentile  city  as 
Ptolemais.”  Utterly  contesting  these  two  propositions, 
I  make  two  admissions  :  first,  that  one  or  more  of  the 
many  and  sparse  references  of  Josephus  may  easily 
mislead  a  prepossessed  and  incomplete  inquirer ;  and 
secondly,  that  in  the  territory  of  Gadara,  and  in  various 
other  parts  of  Palestine,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  look 
for  a  perfectly  homogeneous  population  either  Hebrew 
or  Gentile. 

Outside  the  text  of  J osephus,  Professor  Huxley 
adduces  but  a  single  fact  in  support  of  his  allegations 
concerning  Gadara— the  fact,  namely,  that  its  coinage 
was  Gentile.  But  coinage  is  essentially,  and  is  most  of 
all  in  a  conquered  country,  the  work  of  the  governors, 
wholly  apart  from  the  governed.  To  say  that  the 
Gadarenes  “  adopted  the  Pompeian  era  on  their  coin¬ 
age,”  J  out  of  gratitude,  must  almost  be  a  jest.  If 
Pompey  re-annexed  Gadara  to  the  Syrian  province,  §  it 
is  most  improbable  that  he  should  have  altered  its  laws 
respecting  religion.  Mr.  Huxley  supposes  this  change 
was  popular  as  a  restoration  of  Homan  authority.  But, 
had  he  consulted  the  text  of  Josephus,  he  would  have 
seen  it  was  approved,  because  the  cities  were  restored 


*  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  973.  f  Ibid.  p.  974. 

X  Ibid.  p.  973.  §  Josephus,  ‘  de  Bell.  Jud.’  i.  7,  7. 


253 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 

by  him  to  the  “  Home  Rule  ”  of  their  own  proper 
inhabitants. 


I.  The  Revolted  Jews. 

Mr.  Huxley  comes  nearer  to  the  point  when  he 
touches  the  text  of  Josephus,*  on  which,  indeed,  apart 
from  the  Synoptic  Evangelists,  we  have  chiefly  to 
depend.  He  deals  with  the  passages  found  in  the  18th 
chapter  of  Book  II.  of  the  “Judaic  War.”  Now,  these 
passages  are  most  dangerous  and  seductive  to  those  of 
his  opinion,  because,  if  severed  from  other  passages, 
they  would  prove  his  point :  on  one  condition,  however, 
namely  this,  that  we  admit  what  is,  indeed,  his  master 
fallacy,  to  be  sound  in  logic  and  in  fact. 

He  says  f  that  the  revolted  J ews  are  stated  by 
Josephus  to  have  laid  waste  the  villages  of  the  Syrians, 
“  and  their  neighbouring  cities,  and  after  them  Gadara 
and  Hippos.”  He  then  cites  from  Section  5  the  passage 
which  states  that  Scythopolis,  Askelon,  Ptolemais,  and 
Tyre  slew  or  put  in  prison  great  numbers  of  Jews. 
“  Those  of  Hippos  and  those  of  Gadara  did  the  like  ; 
as  did  the  remaining  cities  of  Syria.”  And  hereupon 
Professor  Huxley  assumes  that  his  case  is  proved  :  causa 
finita  est. 

And  so,  perhaps,  it  might  be  were  we  to  adopt  what 
I  have  termed  his  master  fallacy.  That  master  fallacy 
is  his  assumption  as  to  the  cleavage  of  the  Palestinian 
communities.  According  to  him,  all  that  was  anti- 
Roman  was  Jewish  or  Hebrew,  and  all  that  acted  on  the 
other  side  was  Gentile.  Where,  as  in  Tyre  or  Ptolemais, 


*  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  974. 


f  Ibid,  on  ‘Bell  Jud.’  ii.  18,  1. 


254 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


the  population  generally  is  known  to  have  been  Gentile, 
this  assumption  would,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  be  a  fair  one.  Such,  in  Mr.  Huxley’s  view, 
was  the  case  of  Gadara,  where  the  Jews  were  only 
local  immigrants,  like  the  inhabitants  of  a  Ghetto.* 
But  this  is  just  what  he  ought  to  prove ;  and  it  is  not 
proved  by  showing  either  that  those  Jews  who  were  in 
revolt  attacked  a  part  of  the  Gadarite  population,  or 
that  the  Gadarite  population  afterwards  did  the  like  to 
some  Jews  among  themselves.  For  the  whole  text  of 
Josephus  testifies  that  the  Jews,  as  often  happens  in  a 
case  where  foreign  domination  exists  over  a  people  of 
high  nationalism,  were  sharply  divided  among  them¬ 
selves  on  the  point  of  resistance.  There  were  among 
them  Roman  and  anti- Roman  factions  ;  ardent  spirits 
always  disposed  to  rise,  and  spirits  more  sluggish  and 
pacific,  who  were  either  indifferent  or  indisposed  to  run 
the  risk.  Further,  the  strife  between  these  sometimes 
went  to  blood,  and  not  unfrequently  placed  the  same 
community  on  different  sides  at  different  times.  This, 
undoubtedly,  I  have  to  prove.  I  will  first  illustrate  it 
by  various  cases  including  even  Jerusalem  itself,  and 
will  afterwards  show  that,  if  we  wish  to  make  sense  and 
not  nonsense  out  of  Josephus,  we  must  apply  the  same 
ideas  to  Gadara,  which  besides,  in  all  likelihood,  had 
some  mixture  of  population,  and  classes  possessed  of 
wealth  and  influence,  which  were  sure  to  take  the 
Roman  or  anti-national  side. 

I  must  first,  however,  observe  that  Mr.  Huxley  has 
quoted  the  text  of  Josephus  inaccurately.  As  he  has 
cited  it,  the  revolted  Jews  proceeded  at  Gadara  and 


*  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  974. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


255 


Hippos  as  they  had  done  in  the  cities  of  Syria  that  he 
had  previously  mentioned.  But  what  Josephus  says  >;'f 
is  that  they  devastated  (wholesale  as  it  were)  these 
Syrian  cities,  and  that  then,  proceeding  against  Gadara 
and  Hippos  (which  meant  territories  and  not  mere  cities), 
they  burned  some  places,  and  reduced  to  submission  (not 
the  rest  but)  others ;  thus  pointing  to  those  differences 
of  local  faction,  class,  or  race,  in  the  different  neighbour¬ 
hoods,  which  Mr.  Huxley  overlooks. 

Sepphoris,  the  chief  city  of  Galilee,  and  the  strongest, 
exhibits  those  anomalies  of  political  position  which 
belonged  to  a  conquered,  disturbed,  and  variously 
divided  country.  It  was  one  of  the  five  great  Hebrew 
centres,  which  Gabinius  chose  to  be  the  seats  of 
Sanhedrims. t  After  the  death  of  Herod,  it  was  taken 
and  destroyed  by  the  Romans,  and  the  population 
reduced  to  slavery.  Subsequently  it  was  re-peopled. 
When  Vespasian  invaded  Palestine,  it  asked  and 
obtained  from  him  a  Roman  garrison,  |  as  it  had  also 
received  Cestius  Gallus  with  acclamations  not  long 
before.  §  Yet,  nearly  at  the  same  period,  and  probably 
between  these  two  occasions,  when  J osephus  was  engaged 
in  preparing  Galilee  for  defence,  by  fortifying  at  the 
proper  points,  he  left  Sepphoris  to  raise  its  own  walls, || 
because  while  it  was  rich  it  was  also  so  zealous  for  the 
war.  Later  on,  Sepphoris  was  required  to  give  hostages 
to  the  Romans  at  the  very  time  when  it  was  exposed 
to  the  jealousy  and  hostility  of  the  Jews.  Thus  the 
same  city,  according  to  local  fluctuations,  was  the 
partisan  to-day  of  one  side,  to-morrow  of  the  other.  A 


*  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  ii.  18,  5.  t  ‘  Antiq.’  xiv.  5,  4  ;  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  i.  8,  5. 

x  Ibid,  §  Ibid.  ii.  18, 11.  ||  Ibid,  ii.  20,  6.  ^  ‘  Vita,’  c.  8. 


256 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


clear  comprehension  of  this  shifting  character  in  the 
local  facts  is  vitally  necessary  for  a  sound  judgment  on 
the  case  before  us. 

Again,  Gamala,5*  on  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  adhered  at 
this  time  to  Rome ;  a  little  later  we  find  it  one  of  the 
last  and  most  obstinate  strongholds  of  Judaism  against 
Vespasian. f  Further,  Gabara,  as  I  shall  presently  show, 
exhibited  similar  variations. 

In  truth,  as  Milman  says,*  “every  city  was  torn  to 
pieces  by  little  animosities ;  wherever  the  insurgents  had 
time  to  breathe  from  the  assaults  of  the  Romans,  they 
turned  their  swords  against  each  other.”  It  was  in 
Jerusalem  most  of  all  that  these  bloody  factions  raged  ; 
they  were  exasperated  by  the  arrival  of  strangers ;  the 
peace  parties  shed  the  blood  of  the  warlike,  and  the  war 
parties  of  the  peaceful.  §  In  truth,  such  had  long  been 
the  condition  of  that  city,  that  Vespasian  advisedly 
postponed  the  commencement  of  his  operations  for  fear 
lest  he  should  extinguish  the  local  feuds,  which,  as  he 
saw,  were  wasting  the  strength  of  the  rebels,  and  should 
compel  them  to  unite  together.  || 

It  is,  then,  quite  conceivable  that  when  Josephus  says 
the  revolted  Jews  burned  some  places  and  subjugated  or 
kept  down  others  in  Gadaris,  he  means  to  speak  of 
places  where  the  peace  party,  which  might  be  Jewish 
or  not  J ewish,  predominated ;  and  when  he  says  the 
Hippenes  and  the  Gadarenes  acted  against  the  Jews,  he 
probably  means  that  the  Jews  of  the  war  party  were 
put  down  by  antagonists  averse  to  war,  though  of  their 
own  race,  as  much  as,  and  even  possibly  more  than,  by 


*  ‘Vita,’  c.  11.  f  Milman,  ‘  Hist.  Jews,’  ii.  280-284.  J  Ibid.  ii.  290. 
§  Ibid.  ii.  315  seqq.  |]  Ibid.  ii.  305. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE.  257 

Gentile  portions  of  the  population.  This,  I  have  said, 
is  a  conceivable  opinion.  But,  in  order  to  justify  what 
I  have  said  of  the  argument  of  Professor  Huxley,  I 
must  show  that  it  is  an  opinion  not  only  conceivable, 
but  warranted,  and  even  required,  by  a  consideration  of 
the  whole  evidence  on  the  record.  That  is  the  best 
conclusion,  which  best  meets  all  the  points  of  the  case. 
The  conclusion  reached  by  Professor  Huxley  leaves 
Josephus  in  hopeless  contradiction  to  himself. 

For  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  Gadara  or 
Gadaris,  first,  was  an  important  centre  of  Jewish 
population,  by  which  I  mean  population  subject  to  the 
Mosaic  law  ;  secondly,  was  a  recognised  seat  of  Jewish 
military  strength ;  and  thirdly,  according  to  J osephus 
himself,  acknowledged  the  law  of  Moses  as  its  local 
public  law,  and  was  bound  to  obey  it. 


II.  The  Ordinance  of  Gabinius. 

Mr.  Huxley  places  great  reliance  on  the  “  classical  ” 
work  of  Dr.  Schiirer,*  which  treats  of  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  people  in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  And  certainly 
a  high  tribute  to  it  is  due  from  him,  as  it  seems  to  have 
supplied  nearly  all  his  material  for  the  history  and 
character  of  Gadara  ;  except,  indeed,  the  exaggeration 
of  the  terms  in  which  he  describes  them.  It  may,  per¬ 
haps,  be  questioned  whether  a  work,  of  which  one  half 
bears  dates  so  recent  as  1889  and  1890,  can  yet  have 
fully  earned  the  title  of  a  classical  work.  I  do  not, 
however,  presume  to  question  its  ability  and  research. 


*  ‘  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volks  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi,’ 
Leipzig,  1886-90. 

I. 


S 


258 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


On  the  other  hand,  without  detracting  from  its  general 
character,  I  cannot  assume  it  to  be  precise  and  conclusive 
upon  every  one  of  those  complicated  local  histories  of 
Palestinian  towns,  among  which  Gadara  has  to  be 
reckoned.  Nor  can  I  help  embracing  the  opinion  that 
he  is  (in  the  case  before  us)  over-fond  of  giving  the  go¬ 
by  to  a  difficulty  by  altering  the  text  of  his  authority,  so 
as  to  make  it  conform  to  the  view  he  has  adopted.  No 
less  than  five  times, #  upon  this  very  limited  subject, 
does  he  accept  or  propose  this  method  of  proceeding. 
At  the  same  time,  he  altogether  passes  by  phrases,  and 
even  passages,  of  Josephus,  which  are  of  real,  and,  in 
one  or  more  cases,  even  of  capital  importance. 

Let  the  reader  test  what  I  have  said,  in  the  first 
place,  by  reference  to  the  weighty  statement  of  the 
Jewish  historian  as  to  the  Sanhedrims  of  Gabinius. 

Soon  after  the  conquest  by  Pompey,  who  had  himself 
given  proof  of  his  moderation  and  regard  for  the  religion 
of  a  conquered  people,  Gabinius  became  administrator 
of  the  Roman  power  ;  and  he  divided  Palestine  into  five 
regions,  for  the  purpose  of  administering  the  Jewish  law 
in  each  of  them,  through  an  assembly  of  elders  termed 
Sanhedrim  possibly  also  with  a  view  to  the  easier  and 
more  effective  collection  of  the  Roman  tribute. 

Of  these  regions,  according  to  the  text  as  it  stands, 
one  had  Gadara  for  its  centre  ;  the  others  being 
Jerusalem,  Sepphoris,  Jericho,  and  Amathus.  The 
measure,  and  the  name  of  Gadara,  are  mentioned  in  two 
separate  passages.  Here  we  have  to  all  appearance  a 
pretty  flat  contradiction  to  the  theory  that  Gadara  was 


*  ‘  Antiq.’  xiii.  13,  5  (Schurei-,  ii.  91);  ibid.  xiv.  5,  4 ;  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’ 
i.  8,  5  ;  ibid.  iii.  7,  1 ;  ‘  Vita,’  e.  15. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


259 


a  Greek  or  a  Gentile  city.  Accordingly,  says  Mr. 
Huxley/"  Schiirer  has  “pointed  out”  that  what 
Gabinius  really  did  was  to  lodge  one  of  these  (the 
Sanhedrims)  in  Gazara,  1  1  far  away  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Jordan.”  Under  this  facile  phrase  of  “  pointing 
out  ”  is  signified  the  deliberate  alteration  of  the  text, 
which  inconveniently  asserts  not  only  in  two  separate 
passages,  but  in  two  separate  works, f  that  the  place 
selected  was  not  Gazara,  but  Gadara.  Without  doubt 
any  theory  can  be  established  with  ease,  if  we  are  free 
thus  to  bend  the  original  text  into  conformity  with  its 
demands.  In  this  instance  that  text  contains,  as  we 
shall  see,  a  specific  statement,  which,  as  Mr.  Huxley 
must  have  found  if  he  had  referred  to  Josephus,  made  it 
manifestly  impossible  that  he  could  have  written  Gazara 
in  these  two  places. 

I  confess  that  Dr.  Schiirer  appears  to  me  to  have 
seriously  misapprehended  in  some  degree  the  spirit  of 
this  measure  as  well  as  the  facts,  when  he  says  J  that  it 
involved  the  abolition  of  whatever  residue  of  political 
independence  had  thus  long  remained  to  Palestine, 
because  Hyrcanus  was  now  deprived  of  his  temporal 
and  confined  to  his  priestly  power.  If  we  examine  the 
matter  according  to  the  reason  of  the  case,  it  was 
probably  a  great  gain  to  the  population  bo  have  the 
Mosaic  law  administered  at  its  own  doors  by  its  own 
local  leaders  rather  than  by  a  priest-king  sitting  at  a 
distance  in  Jerusalem.  If  we  test  it  by  the  general 
spirit  of  the  policy  of  this  proconsul,  we  are  led  to 
suppose  it  friendly,  because  with  it  there  was  combined 
the  rebuilding  of  some  cities  which  had  been  overthrown. 

*  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  973. 

f  ‘  Antiq.’ xiv.  5,  4  ;  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  i.  8,  5. 


$  ‘Gesch.’  i.  276. 


260 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 

If  we  follow  the  authority  of  J osephus,  we  are  bound  to 
take  it  as  a  measure  altogether  favourable  to  Jewish 
liberties  ;  for,  he  says,*  “thus  the  Jews  were  liberated 
from  dynastic  rule,  and  remained  under  the  government 
of  their  local  heads  ”  ( kv  apio-TOKpareia  SLyjyor). 

Since  the  text,  as  it  stands,  entirely  overthrows  the 
doctrine  that  Gadara  was  a  Gentile  city,  the  propounders 
of  that  theory  can  only  meet  their  difficulty  by  altering 
it,  although  they  must  surely  feel  that  to  mutilate  the 
text  of  two  independent  works  is  a  remedy  not  daring 
only,  but  rather  desperate. 

But,  independently  of  the  confirmatory  witness  of  a 
double  text,  Josephus  cannot  have  written  Gazara,  for, 
if  he  had  done  so,  he  would  have  committed  the  absurd 
error  of  contradicting  himself  in  the  very  sentence  in 
which  he  wrote  it. 

Gazara  is  not  only  “  far  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan.” 
We  are  dealing  with  the  north-east  of  the  country,  and 
Gazara  is  in  the  extreme  south-west.  Josephus  says  ex¬ 
pressly  that  Gabinius  divided  the  country  into  five  equal 
districts.  Now  the  old  kingdom  of  Judaea  may  be  taken 
roughly  as  one-third  of  Palestine.  Samaria  was  probably 
excluded :  even  if  it  were  not,  the  case  is  not  greatly 
altered.  For  the  emendation  thus  “  pointed  out  ” 
entirely  overthrows  the  equality  of  the  districts.  It 
gives  to  Judaea  three  out  of  the  five  Sanhedrims,  and, 
leaving  Amathus  for  the  country  beyond  J ordan,  assigns 
to  Sepphoris  alone  the  Galilees  and  Decapolis,  or  a  terri¬ 
tory  about  as  large  as  that  given  to  the  three  southern 
centres  conjointly. 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  observe  that,  besides 


*  ‘  Anliq.’  xiv.  5,4. 


261 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 

this  fatal  objection,  Gazara  seems  to  be  disqualified  by 
its  geographical  remoteness  near  the  south  -  western 
border,  and  perhaps  also  by  comparative  historical 
insignificance. 

The  emendation,  then,  has  to  be  committed  emenda - 
turis  ignibus,  for  contradicting  not  only  the  authentic 
record,  but  also  itself  ;  and  the  twice-repeated  testimony 
of  Josephus  stands  intact,  showing  that,  shortly  after 
the  time  of  Pompey,  Gadara  was  chosen  for  a  purpose 
which  obviously  required,  and  which  therefore  estab¬ 
lishes  its  being,  a  great  centre  of  Hebrew  or  Mosaic 
population. 


III.  Military  Importance. 

Having  shown  that  Gadara  was  important  as  a  centre 
of  population  which  was  either  J ewish  in  blood  or 
governed  by  the  Jewish  law,  I  will  next  show  that 
Gadara  was  also  formidable  as  a  seat  of  Jewish  military 
power.  The  time  came  when  Vespasian  had  to  con¬ 
template  operations  against  Jerusalem.  And  now,  says 
Josephus,*  “  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  subdue  what 
remained  unsubdued,  and  to  leave  nothing  behind  him 
which  might  prevent  his  prosecution  of  the  siege.” 

Accordingly,  he  marched  to  the  point  of  danger* 
This  was  Gadara,  the  strong  metropolis  of  Persea,  which 
had  once,  against  Jannseus,  stood  a  siege  of  ten  months. 
The  rich,  who  were  numerous  there,  escaping  the  notice 
of  their  opponents,  had  invited  him.  On  the  approach 
of  VesjDasian,  the  party  disposed  to  war  found  itself 
(and  no  wonder)  in  a  minority,  and  fled  ;  but  not  till 


*  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  iv.  7,  3. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


they  had  massacred  Dolesus,  the  author  of  the  invitation 
to  the  Roman  general.  In  their  absence,  the  people 
received  Y espasian  with  acclamations.  But  they  pulled 
down  the  walls  of  their  own  accord  :  and  he  then  left 
with  them  a  garrison  of  horse  and  foot  to  defend  them 
against  the  return  of  the  expelled  party.  Why  were  the 
walls  pulled  down,  except  to  prevent  the  population 
from  holding  the  city  against  the  Romans  ?  Why, 
although  the  wealthy  and  the  local  governing  power 
was  friendly,  yet  was  a  Roman  garrison  left  behind, 
but  because  the  dominant  force  in  the  city,  apart  from 
foreign  intervention,  was  a  Hebrew  or  anti-Roman,  and 
not  a  Gentile,  force  1  And  does  not  this  passage,  even 
if  it  stood  alone,  abundantly  suffice  to  show  that,  what¬ 
ever  the  division  of  parties  may  have  been,  Gadara  was 
not,  “  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  Gentile  city  ”  ?  It 
was  a  city  from  which  Vespasian  apprehended  an  attack 
in  his  rear  ;  and  to  prevent  this  he  makes  it  an  open 
city,  and  leaves  a  force  in  it  in  order  that  his  partisans 
might  continue  to  have  the  upper  hand. 

But  let  us  not  suppose  that  these  partisans  were 
necessarily  Gentiles.  I  must  again  press  the  proposition 
that  the  Jews  of  that  era,  or  the  populations  observing 
the  Mosaic  law,  were  largely  divided  into  peace  party 
and  war  party,  and  that  we  may  find  a  peace  party 
acting  with  the  Gentiles  against  their  fellow-country¬ 
men,  in  order  to  avoid  the  alternative  of  war.  I  will 
now  refer  to  a  passage  which  shows  this  in  a  manner 
quite  conclusive.  Gischala  *  appears  to  have  been  a 
city  of  the  extreme  war  party,  though  it,  too,  had 
partisans  of  peace.  However,  it  broke  away,  and  was 


*  Josephus,  ‘Vita,’  c.  x. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


263 


in  consequence  assailed  and  destroyed  by  a  composite 
force  of  Tyrians,  Sogarenes,  Gadarenes,  and  Gabarenes. 
It  seems  quite  natural  that  the  Tyrians,  a  Gentile 
people,  should  actively  maintain  the  Roman  domination. 
And  the  Gabarenes  on  this  occasion  acted  with  them. 
Shall  this  prove  Gabara  to  be  a  Gentile  city  1  Certainly 
not :  for  Gabara  was  a  Galilean,  and,  as  Mr.  Huxley 
himself  sees,  a  thoroughly  J ewish  city,  and  yet  it  shared 
in  the  overthrow  of  Gischala.  There  cannot  be  a  clearer 
proof  that,  in  certain  cases,  it  was  not  the  question  of 
religion  or  race  that  determined  the  balance  of  opinion 
and  the  action  of  the  community,  but  the  question  of 
war  or  peace.  I  rely,  then,  on  the  strategical  move¬ 
ment  of  Vespasian  to  show  that  Gadara,  an  important 
centre  of  Jewish  population,  was  also  in  the  main  an 
important  seat  of  J  ewish  military  strength ;  most  of  all, 
perhaps,  as  being  the  centre  at  which  the  rural  popu¬ 
lation  of  Gadaris  would  muster  for  war  in  case  of 
emergency. 

IV.  The  Jewish  Law  in  Gadaris. 

Although,  in  inquiries  of  this  kind,  we  may  speak  of 
Jewish  or  Hebrew  populations,  as  Dean  Milman  does, 
to  describe  generally  those  who  were  adverse  to  the 
Roman  power,  the  expressions  are  not  quite  satisfactory, 
because,  in  themselves,  they  involve  a  condition  of  race  j 
whereas,  to  say  nothing  of  those  descendants  of  the 
ancient  Canaanites  who  had  conformed  to  Judaism,  we 
find  that  the  Mosaic  law  was  imposed  at  the  time  of 
which  we  treat,  as  a  consequence  of  conquest,  if  not  on 
Gentile  yet  on  what  were  in  some  sense  mixed  popu¬ 
lations.  And  the  real  question  in  respect  to  the 


264 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


Gadarene  territory  is  not  exclusively  whether  the  popu¬ 
lation  were  of  Hebrew  extraction,  but  also,  and  indeed 
mainly,  whether  they  were  Jewish  as  being  bound  by 
the  Jewish  law :  or,  as  I  should  like  to  call  it,  whether 
they  were  a  Mosaic  population.  To  this  question  let  us 
now  further  look. 

According  to  Origen,*  Gadara  was  simply  a  city  of 
Judaea.  According  to  Josephus  in  one  passage,  it  was 
a  Grecian  city,  as  were  Hippos  and  Gaza.  I  But  in 
another  place  he  includes  it  in  a  great  group  of  cities 
which  were  Syrian,  Idumaean,  or  Phoenician,^;  and  he 
then  places  it  in  the  Syrian  subdivision  of  that  group. 
We  are  guided  by  the  nature  of  the  case  to  the  meaning 
of  these  two  last-named  designations.  There  was  no 
properly  Hellenic  element  reckoned  in  the  population  of 
the  country,  §  though  there  must  have  been  a  sprinkling 
of  Greeks  concerned  in  the  administration  of  the  king¬ 
doms  founded  by  Alexander’s  generals.  As  there  were 
Phoenicians  in  the  earliest  Hellas,  so  now  there  were 
important  Hellenic  settlers  in  Asia,  and,  without  doubt, 
a  larger  number  of  Hellenised  Asiatics.  In  connection 
with  the  name  of  Gadaris,  Strabo  ||  enumerates  a  few 
Greek  individuals  of  some  distinction.  The  case  has 
been  sufficiently  explained  by  Grote,^[  who  allows  as  the 
characteristics  of  what  was,  he  thinks  improperly,  called 
Hellenism,  in  the  kingdoms  after  Alexander,  the  com¬ 
mon  use  of  Greek  speech,  a  certain  proportion  of  Greeks, 
both  as  inhabitants  and  as  officers,  and  a  partial  streak 
of  Hellenic  culture.  This  flavour  of  Hellenism  would 


*  ‘  In  Joann.’  p.  141.  f  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  ii.  6,  3. 

X  ‘  Antiq.’  xiii.  15,  4.  §  Strabo,  xvi.  2. 

||  Ibid.  xvi.  2,  29.  *  Hist,  of  Greece,’  xii.  362-7. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


265 


be  found  rather  at  central  spots  than  in  the  country  at 
large.  At  Gadara  it  might  be  sustained  by  the  baths, 
which  probably  made  it  a  place  of  fashionable  resort. 
But  in  this  qualified  or  diluted  sense,  the  name  of 
Grecian  was  applied  both  to  the  Syrian  and  the  Egyptian 
powers,* * * §  and  the  Rescript  of  Augustus  respecting  reli¬ 
gion  accordingly  describes  Judsea  as  having  suffered 
grievously  from  Greek  cruelty.  Politically,  Gadara 
with  Hippos  and  Gaza  |  were  given  to  Herod,  and  after 
his  death,  on  the  division  of  his  dominions,  they  were 
re-annexed  to  Syria.  But  these  were  administrative 
changes,  made  without  any  effect,  so  far  as  appears,  on 
the  laws  and  religion  of  the  country.  Very  different 
was  the  change  which  ensued  when,  from  having  been 
a  Syrian  city,;j;  it  was  acquired  by  Alexander  Jannreus 
for  Judaea.  §  My  opponent  has  overlooked  the  capital 
fact,  that  what  J udaea  acquired  or  recovered  by  conquest 
was  thereupon  placed  under  the  Mosaic  law.  In  Samaria, 
we  may  safely  assume  that  it  was  there  already  when 
Jannaeus  conquered  it.  When  Idumaea  was  subdued  by 
his  father  Hyrcanus,||  that  law  was  established,  and 
the  people  were  at  once  circumcised.  In  the  case  now 
before  us  the  statement,  though  indirect,  is  equally 
conclusive.  When  Josephus  enumerates  11  the  cities 
conquered  by  J anmeus,  Pella  closes  the  list.  But  Pella, 

*  ‘Antiq.’  xvi.  6,  2. 

f  ‘Bell.  Jud.’  ii.  5,  3;  ‘Antiq.’  xvii.  11,  4. 

X  Mr.  Huxley  says,  “  It  is  said  to  have  been  destroyed  by  its  captors.” 
it  is  not  so  stated  by  Josephus  in  his  account  of  the  conquest.  But  it 
seems  to  have  undergone  some  reverse  before  the  time  of  Pompey 
(b.C.  65),  by  whose  favour  it  was  restored. 

§  ‘  Antiq.’  xiii.  1 5,  4. 

j  Milman,  ‘Hist.  Jews,’  ii.  28;  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  xix.  9,  1. 

*|[  ‘  Antiq.’  xiii.  15,  4, 


266 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


he  adds,  they  destroyed,  because  the  inhabitants  would 
not  submit  to  the  Mosaic  law  (ra  TraTpia  raiy  TouSouW 
Wrj).  It  is  plain  therefore  that  the  other  cities,  of  which 
Gadara  was  one,  remained  intact,  because  they  allowed 
the  law  of  Moses  to  become  the  law  of  the  land. 

Alexander  Jannaeus  died  in  b.c.  79.  But  there  is 
not,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  smallest  evidence  that  the 
law  was  altered  here,  any  more  than  in  Galilee  or  Jud?ea, 
before  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  Mr.  Huxley  indeed 
again  and  again  assumes  the  contrary,*  but  without 
citing  a  single  authority,  or  even  taking  notice  of  the 
testimony  from  Josephus  which  I  have  here  given ;  and 
it  is  in  the  light  of  this  passage  that  we  have  to  con¬ 
sider  the  establishment  of  the  Sanhedrim  by  Gabinius. 
He  says,  indeed  (without  any  reference),  that  the  only 
laws  of  Gadara  were  the  Gentile  laws  sanctioned  by  the 
Roman  suzerain.!  Now  we  know  something  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Roman  suzerain  in  the  time  of 
Augustus,  with  regard  to  the  Jews,  not  of  Judsea 
merely,  but  of  Asia  at  large  and  of  Cyrenais,  who 
appealed  to  Ceesar  against  what  they  termed  Greek 
oppression.^  The  answer  commends  the  fidelity  of  the 
J ews ;  it  especially  lauds  Hyrcanus,  the  actual  high 
priest ;  and  then  grants  to  the  J  ews  without  limit  the 
full  enjoyment  of  their  own  peculiar  laws,  after  the 
manner  of  their  fathers,  as  they  were  enjoying  them 
under  Hyrcanus,  the  high  priest.  This  charter  of  con¬ 
tinuance  for  the  Mosaic  law  where  it  prevailed  is  issued 
during  the  lifetime  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  before  the 
re-annexation  of  Gadara  to  the  Syrian  province.  I 
can  hardly  suppose,  however,  that  any  one  would  assign 


*  Nineteenth  Century ,  pp.  977-8. 

f  Ibid.  p.  977.  J  Josephus,  ‘Antiq.’  xvi.  6,  1,  2. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


267 


to  that  merely  administrative  change  the  effect  of  alter¬ 
ing  the  religious  law  of  the  country,  a  matter  in  which 
the  general  rule  of  Roman  policy  was  that  of  resolute 
non-interference. 

I  conceive,  then,  that  the  conquest  of  Jannseus, 
together  with  the  measures  of  Gabinius,  leave  no 
reasonable  ground  for  doubting  that  the  law  established 
in  Gadara  at  that  period  was  the  Mosaic  law ;  and  also 
that  the  Rescript  of  Augustus  confirms  this  proposition. 
But  confirmation  is  not  required.  If  the  religious 
system  of  the  Jews  was  established  there  in  the  time 
of  Gabinius,  we  must  assume  its  continuance  until  we 
find  it  changed.  Of  such  a  change  there  is  not,  I 
believe,  any  sign  before  the  time  of  our  Lord. 

Y.  Strabo. 

Were  it  only  on  account  of  his  general  authority,  we 
must  not  omit  to  notice  the  particulars  which  Strabo 
has  supplied  with  respect  to  Gadaris.  He  has  indeed 
fallen  into  undeniable  confusion  as  to  geographical 
arrangement,  yet  not  so  as  to  hide  the  real  effect  of 
some  important  statements. 

In  proceeding  southwards  along  the  Syrian  coast, 
Strabo #  places  Gadaris  next  to  Joppa ;  then  comes 
Azotus,  Ascalon,  and  Gaza.  From  Gadara  proceeded 
five  persons  with  Grecian  names,  of  whom  he  gives  a 
list.  Now  this  Gadara  has  points  of  contact  with  the 
Gadara  of  the  north,  first  because  he  speaks  of  it  as 
Gadaris,  a  territory  and  not  only  a  town ;  secondly, 
because  the  Greeks  whom  he  names  are  known  to  have 


*  Strabo,  xvi.  2,  p.  759. 


268 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


sprung  from  Gadara  of  Pertea.*  Let  us  now  try  to 
clear  up  this  matter. 

Proceeding  from  Gaza  towards  Pelusium,  he  intro¬ 
duces  the  Sirbonian  Lake  or  morass ;  f  but,  in  describing 
by  characteristic  details  the  nature  of  its  waters,  he 
gives  them  jmoperties  which,  copied  from  Diodorus, 
render  it  an  accurate  account  of  the  Dead  Sea ;  except 
that  he  assigns  to  it  only  200  stadia  in  length,  and 
makes  it  stretch  along  the  sea  coast,  which  agrees  with 
the  Sirbonian  Lake,  while  the  length  of  the  Dead  Sea 
nearly  reaches  forty  miles.  £  He  was  in  fact  almost 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  interior ;  and,  as  he  confounded 
the  Dead  Sea  with  the  Sirbonian  Lake,  he  probably  also 
confounded  the  Lake  of  Tiberias  with  the  Dead  Sea, 
both  being  on  the  line  of  the  J ordan  ;  and  thus  was  led 
to  bring  Gadaris  into  geographical  relation  with  it  and 
with  the  coast. 

The  chief  importance,  however,  of  his  account  is  to 
be  found  in  a  third  point  of  contact  with  the  true 
Gadaris  which  it  presents.  He  describes  the  appro¬ 
priation  of  this  territory  by  a  remarkable  phrase.  The 
Jews,  he  says,  e£i8id<xai/ro,  made  it  conform  to  their  own 
model ;  thus  supporting  emphatically  the  account  drawn 
above  from  Josephus  respecting  the  introduction  of  the 
Jewish  law  into  the  district. 

It  seems  possible  that  Strabo  may  have  been  in  part 
misled  by  the  name  of  Gazara,  which  was  in  this  part 
of  Palestine,  and  which  had  likewise  been  Judaised  upon 
a  military  conquest. 


*  Schiirer,  ii.  91.  f  Strabo,  p.  763. 

%  Williams  in  Smith’s  ‘  Diet.’ 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


269 


VI.  Gadara  and  Garara. 

Vespasian,  in  commencing  his  campaign  of  a.d.  67, 
came  from  Antioch  to  Ptolemais  to  unite  his  force  with 
that  of  Titus.  He  was  there  met  by  a  party  sent  out 
of  Sepphoris,  *  who  obtained  from  him  a  Roman  garrison. 
From  this  centre,  all  Galilee  was  laid  waste  with  fire 
and  sword,  there  being  no  safety  except  in  the  cities 
fortified  by  Josephus.  |  Vespasian  then  carried  his 
army  of  overwhelming  force  across  the  Galilrean  frontier, 
and  encamped  there  to  try  the  moral  effect  upon  the 
enemy.  It  was  so  powerful  that  Josephus,  J  who  com¬ 
manded  the  Jews,  withdrew  his  force  to  Tiberias,  at  the 
extremity  of  the  province. 

Hereupon,  says  our  historian, §  Vespasian  attacked 
the  city  of  the  Gadarenes,  took  it  at  the  first  assault, 
as  it  was  not  provided  with  a  fighting  force,  and  on  his 
entry  slaughtered  the  inhabitants  of  military  age,  for 
two  reasons — one  of  which  was  hatred  to  their  race. 
As  the  text  stands,  it  proves  at  least  a  wide  prevalence 
of  Jewish  nationality  in  the  city  and  region  of  Gadaris. 

It  is  proposed,  however,  to  alter  Gadara  into  Gabara, 
and  the  alteration,  first  suggested  by  Reland  (1714), 
but  not  adopted  by  Hudson  (1720)  or  Cardwell  (1837), 
has  received  the  approval  of  Schtirer,  of  Milman,||  and 
of  Robinson  A  I  speak  of  it  with  respect,  out  of 
deference  to  such  authorities.  They  do  not  seem  to 
have  stated  conclusive  or  even  detailed  reasons,  beyond 
the  remark  that,  while  Gabara  may  be  within  fifteen 


*  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  ii.  2,  4. 
t  Ibid.  6,  2,  3. 

||  ii.  243. 


f  Ibid.  4,  1. 

§  Ibid.  7,  1. 

‘  Biblical  Researches,’  iv.  37. 


270 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


miles  of  Ptolemais,  Gadara  is  out  of  Galilee,  and  more 
than  twice  the  distance.  Professor  Huxley  has  gone 
much  further,  and  has  set  forth  strategical  reasons 
which  he  thinks  demonstrate  that  Vespasian’s  case  would 
have  been  one  truly  of  demoniacal  possession  could  he 
have  passed  by  Gabara  and  marched  on  to  Gadara. 
For  the  Homan  line  of  march  would  have  been  between 
Gabara,  to  the  north,  and  Jotopata,  a  fortified  city  in 
strong  position  on  the  south.  According  to  Robinson,"5 
I  may  observe  the  distance  between  the  two  is  only 
from  six  to  eight  Roman  miles.  Vespasian  “  could  not 
afford  to  leave  these  strongholds  in  the  possession  of  the 
enemy,”  |  and  from  Gabara  “  his  communications  with 
his  base  could  easily  be  threatened.” 

Now  this  statement  is  contradicted  right  and  left  by 
the  facts.  For  first,  if  Gabara  be  the  right  reading, 
it  was  (and  so  Milman  has  stated  it)  ungarrisoned. 
Secondly,  it  was  not  a  stronghold  at  all ;  for  Josephus 
tells  us  that  all  Galilee  was  now  cruelly  devastated  with 
fire  and  sword  by  the  Romans,  and  there  was  nowhere 
any  refuge,  except  in  the  cities  he  had  fortified ;  of 
which  Gabara  was  not  one.  Thirdly,  in  the  narrow 
region  between  Gabara  and  Jotopata  lay  Sepphoris, 
which  was  held  by  the  Romans,  and  was  the  stronghold 
from  which  all  Galilee  was  laid  waste.  Fourthly,  Ves¬ 
pasian,  in  defiance  of  his  modern  instructor,  did  leave 
behind  him  all  the  twelve  or  fourteen  strong  places  that 
Josephus  had  fortified  except  one.  Fifthly,  he  did, 
indeed,  march  against  Jotopata,  but  for  this  he  had 
a  very  strong  reason,  quite  apart  from  fears  about  his 
base,  which  would  under  the  circumstances  have  been 


*  iv.  87  (1852). 


f  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  976. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


271 


chimerical:  namely,  that  the  Roman  commander,  Placi- 
dus,  had  just  before  failed  in  an  attack  upon  it,  and  had 
been  defeated  and  put  to  flight  under  its  walls.  We  may 
now,  I  think,  bid  adieu  to  the  strategy  of  Professor  Huxley. 

Many  a  good  cause,  however,  suffers  from  the  use  of 
bad  arguments  in  its  favour.  It  remains  for  me  to 
offer,  with  due  submission,  some  reasons,  which  appear 
to  me  serious,  in  support  of  the  text  as  it  stands. 

1.  Josephus  says  Vespasian  attacked  “the  city  of  the 
Gadarenes.”  So  far  as  I  know,  he  uses  this  form  of 
expression  only  when  the  city  is  the  centre  of  a  district 
(Gadaris)  *  named  after  it.  Such  was  the  case  of 
Gadara,  but  not  of  Gabara.  He  does  not  call  Sepphoris 
the  city  of  the  Sepphorites,  or  Gamala  the  city  of  the 
Gamalenes. 

2.  He  says  the  place  was  taken  at  the  first  assault ; 
appropriately  enough  for  a  fortified  place  shorn  of  its 
garrison,  but  not  appropriate  for  an  open  town. 

3.  Gamala,  as  part  of  the  open  country  of  Galilee, 
was  already  in  full  subjection  to  the  Romans. 

4.  If,  as  we  see,  Vespasian  began  his  operations  by 
securing  Sepphoris,  the  capital  of  Galilee,  and  thereby 
secured  the  province,  so  that  the  Jewish  force  fled  to 
Tiberias,  was  it  strange  or  unnatural  that  he  should 
as  his  next  operation  secure  the  capital  of  Persea  to 
dominate  the  territory  beyond  Jordan1? 

5.  The  text,  as  it  stands,  agrees  with  Book  iv.  7,  3, 
in  testifying  to  the  military  importance  of  Gadara  :  but 
the  emendation  makes  Vespasian  prefer  to  Jotopata  a 
place  which  apparently  counted  for  nothing  in  military 
movements. 


*  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  iii.  3,  1. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


979 
£  I  u 


VII.  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists. 

Bidding  farewell  now  to  the  text  of  Josephus,  I  do 
not  know  that  we  have  much  more  assistance  to  expect 
from  secular  literature  as  to  Gadara  and  its  district. 
But  a  very  important  light  is  cast  upon  it  by  the 
Synoptical  Gospels,  and  by  the  facts  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  history  in  their  relation  to  the  geographical 
precinct,  which  was  also  in  general  the  ethnical  limit, 
of  our  Lord’s  ministry  upon  earth. 

It  was,  apparently,  a  part  of  the  providential  calling 
of  the  race  of  Abraham  that  they  were  to  have  in  the 
first  instance  for  themselves  a  distinct  and  separate  offer 
of  the  new  “  glad  tidings.”  Christ  was  not  sent,  accord¬ 
ingly,  “  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel.” 
It  is  most  interesting  to  observe  how  and  in  what 
localities  this  offer  took  effect. 

We  naturally  look  in  the  first  instance  to  Jerusalem 
and  the  country  belonging  to  it.  Our  Lord  was  born, 
as  we  know,  in  J udaea ;  and  the  scene  of  the  Gospel 
of  St.  John,  which  is  in  the  main  confined  to  Jerusalem 
and  its  neighbourhood,  and  also  in  the  main  to  a  few 
continuous  narratives,  is  principally  laid  there.  The 
territory  of  Samaria  was  immediately  contiguous  to  that 
of  Judaea,  but  “the  Jews  had  no  dealings ”*  with  the 
mixed  race  inhabiting  that  country,  and  our  Saviour 
seems  never  to  have  exercised  there  more  than  what 
may  be  termed  an  accidental  ministry.  But  the  Bap¬ 
tism  and  temptation  were  in  Galilee.  |  It  was  there 
that  He  commenced  His  course  of  miracles.  J  When 

t  Matt.  iii.  1,  13  ;  iv.  1. 

X  John  ii.  11. 


*  John  iv.  9. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


273 


the  wakeful  jealousy  of  the  Pharisees  made  it  needful 
for  Him  to  quit  Judtea  and  repair  to  Galilee, #  “  He  must 
needs  go  through  Samaria.”  Then  came  the  (so  to 
speak)  casual  meeting  and  discourse  with  the  woman 
of  Samaria,  to  whom  He  declared  that  salvation  was  of 
the  Jews. |  Out  of  the  report  which  she  carried  away 
from  Him,  there  grew  an  invitation  of  the  Samaritans 
to  the  Saviour,  praying  Him  to  come  among  them  :  J 
but  He  abode  with  them  only  two  days,  and  passed  on 
into  Galilee.  It  is  wonderful  to  observe  how  large  a 
proportion  of  His  ministry  was  exercised  in  the  north. 
Nor  was  it  in  the  neighbourhood  of  His  own  city  of 
Nazareth,  nor  equally  diffused  over  the  Galilean  pro¬ 
vinces  from  east  to  west,  but  was  almost  confined,  or 
most  largely  given,  to  the  eastern  district  and  the  close 
neighbourhood  of  the  Galikean  sea.  Here  and  here¬ 
abouts  we  have  the  principal  specific  narratives  of  the 
calling  of  the  Apostles,  §  to  the  number,  apparently,  of 
six.  Here  lay  the  chief  scene  of  our  Lord’s  active 
ministry :  here  was  delivered  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
It  was  not  only  from  the  eastern  or  Galilaean  side  of 
this  sea,  but  from  Decapolis  also  He  was  followed  by 
great  multitudes ;  ||  and  of  Decapolis  Gadara  and  its 
district  were  an  important,  and  were  also  the  nearest, 
part.  And  the  fact  that  our  Saviour  selected  Chorazin, 
Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum  for  the  denunciation  of  the 
woes,  on  account  of  the  privileges  that  they  had 
enjoyed,  at  once  denotes  the  scenes  of  His  habitual 
preaching,  and  bears  appalling  testimony  to  its  rejection.. 

*  John  i.  43;  ii.  1—11. 

f  Ibid.  v.  22.  t  Ibid‘  v-  40- 

§  Matt.  iv.  18-22,  and  John  i.  40-51. 

||  Matt.  iv.  25.  1  Ibid.  xi.  21-24;  Luke  x.  13-15. 


274 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


Dr.  Edersheim  places  a  group  of  the  miracles  to  the 
east  of  the  sea  of  Galilee  in  “  a  semi-heathen  popula¬ 
tion,”  *  lying  much  beyond  Gadara.  But  he  includes 
the  eastern  shores  of  the  lake  in  the  country  which  he 
describes  as  the  principal  seat  of  Jewish  nationalism,  f 
This  perhaps  was  “  GaliJee  of  the  Gentiles.”  J  Nor  did 
our  Lord  wholly  avoid  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,§ 
where  there  were  Jews  in  considerable  numbers :  but 
the  contrast  between  these  towns  and  those  before 
named  proves  the  comparative  rarity  of  His  visits.  If 
they  were  also  rare  in  Decapolis,  “  through  the  midst 
of  the  coasts  of  which  ”  [|  He  came,  we  must  recollect 
that  this  district,  constituted  under  Greek  authority, 
included  Damascus  and  other  Gentile  cities.  We  know 
very  well  that  Hebraic  settlement  and  influence  were 
not  in  our  Lord’s  time  confined  to  the  western  side  of 
the  Lake  of  Tiberias ;  for  the  town  of  Gamala  %  on  its 
eastern  side  (see  Robinson’s  map)  was  sternly  Jewish 
in  the  final  struggle,  which  was  also  sustained  by  multi¬ 
tudes,  so  says  Josephus,  from  Peraea  as  well  as  other 
parts  of  Palestine ;  Persea  being  regularly  reckoned  as 
part  of  Palestine  by  the  Rabbis. ## 

We  need  not  doubt  that  there  was  a  variable  Syrian 
infusion  in  the  population  of  this  country.  But  we 
have  to  bear  in  mind  that  Gadaris  and  all  its  neighbour¬ 
hood  formed  part  of  the  old  promised  land,  and  that, 
accordingly,  the  law  of  Moses  had  been  in  force  there 
from  a  date  running  back  for  a  thousand  or  fifteen  hun¬ 
dred  years  ;  unless,  perhaps,  at  the  comparatively  recent 

*  ‘Life  and  Times  of  Jesus/  ch.  xxxiv. 

f  Ibid.  ch.  x.  vol.  i.  p.  238.  f  Matt.  iv.  15;  Isa.  ix.  1. 

§  Matt.  xy.  21  ;  Mark  vii.  24.  |j  Mark  vii.  31. 

*([  Milman,  ‘  Hist.  Jews/  ii.  280-6.  **  Edersheim,  i.  398. 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


275 


period  at  which  it  had  been  reckoned  for  a  time  as  a 
Syrian  city.  The  right  general  assumption,  therefore, 
is  that  the  large  majority,  especially  of  the  rural  and 
labouring  population,  was  either  of  genuinely  Hebrew 
origin,  or  was  drawn  from  one  of  those  nations  of 
Canaan  who  were  in  prior  occupation.  As  to  these, 
the  reader  of  the  Sacred  Volume  must  be  struck  by  the 
contrast  between  the  pre-exilic  and  the  post-exilic  times. 
In  the  earlier  history  of  Palestine,  we  are  only  too 
much  reminded  of  their  presence  by  the  fatal  fascina¬ 
tions  of  their  worship.  At  the  later  period,  when 
Judaism  had  set  itself  firmly  against  idolatry,  they  seem 
to  be  effaced ;  and  we  are  left  to  infer  that  unless  in 
Samaria,  on  which  they  imprinted  a  hybrid  character, 
they  had  either  quitted  the  country  or  had  been  drawn 
gradually  within  the  compass  of  the  more  substantive 
religion,  and  had  come  to  be  reckoned  in  the  number 
of  the  dominant  and  more  persistent  race.  Over  and 
above  these  considerations,  and  that  re-establishment  of 
the  Jewish  law  in  the  recovered  cities,  of  which  notice 
has  already  been  taken,  it  is  known  that,  after  the  two 
captivities,  there  was  a  powerful  reflux  or  reaction  of 
the  Hebrew  element  or  race  in  Northern  Palestine, 
which,  perhaps,  was  the  means  of  establishing  the  broad 
distinction  between  it  and  Samaria.  Dean  Milman 
notices  this  infusion.*  Samaria  remained,  he  observes, 
in  comparative  insignificance.  But  the  north  became 
gradually  populous,  whether  from  the  multiplication  of 
those  who  had  escaped  deportation,  or  from  those  who 
returned,  with  the  aid,  perhaps,  of  families  belonging  to 
the  southern  tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin.  We  might 


*  Edersheim,  i.  441,  2. 


276 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


have  expected  this  current  of  Hebraism  partially  to 
repair  to  the  neighbouring  district  of  Samaria,  and  to 
the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim  ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
the  inhabitants  worshipped  in  Jerusalem,  followed  the 
fortunes  of  its  ruling  power,  and  fought  desperately  at 
the  close  for  the  national  cause.  He  speaks  in  particu¬ 
lar  of  the  two  Galilees,  but  the  resistance,  as  Dr.  Eder- 
sheim  has  stated,  extended  beyond  them,  and  it  is  plain 
that  in  a  portion,  at  least,  and  evidently  the  nearer 
portion,  of  Decapolis,  strong  nationalism  prevailed. 
And  here  we  may  admire  the  wisdom  of  Gabinius  in 
providing  at  Gadara  and  Sepphoris  for  the  local  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  law,  and  thus  relieving  this  great  popula¬ 
tion  from  much  of  the  inconvenience  of  dependence  on  a 
distant  centre  at  Jerusalem. 

Quite  apart  from  the  conclusive  testimony  of  Josephus, 
Mr.  Huxley  has  evidently  seen  that  the  Synoptical 
Gospels,  in  the  narrative  of  the  swine,  and  in  other  parts, 
presuppose  the  predominance  of  a  Hebrew  nationality  in 
the  population  of  Gadaris.  He  is  wise,  therefore,  in  not 
only  rejecting  the  story,  but  availing  himself  of  the 
occasion  in  order  to  challenge  the  general  authority  of 
the  Gospels.  Conversely,  all  we  who  acknowledge  their 
historical  credit,  must  feel  how  improbable  it  is  that  our 
Lord  should  have  carried  His  ministry  into  a  really 
Greek  or  Gentile  district  on  the  only  one  occasion  when 
He  thought  fit  to  run  counter  to  the  public  sentiment, 
and  to  give  to  His  action  the  character  of  a  serious 
interference  with  the  rights  of  property.  How  could 
He  have  ventured  thus  to  associate  Himself  with  the 
destruction  of  a  great  herd  of  swine,  if  the  country  was 
Gentile,  and  if  those  swine  belonged  to  persons  not 
bound  by  the  prohibition  of  the  Mosaic  law  ?  Might 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


2 


i 


they  not,  and  would  they  not,  have  resorted  to  the  use 
of  force  against  this  unarmed,  as  well  as  unauthorised 
intruder  ?  But  what  happens  is  that  the  swineherds 
fly ;  according  to  all  the  three  Evangelists,  they  fly  ; 
to  the  city,  according  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,* 
which  was  the  seat  of  authority ;  and  they  tell  what  had 
happened.  Why,  then,  if  this  was  a  land  of  Gentile 
rule,  and  if  the  swineherds  were  Gentiles,  why  was  not 
our  Saviour,  since  His  agency  was  recognised,  either 
assailed  by  popular  violence,  or  called  regularly  to 
account  by  the  law  of  the  land  ;  by  that  “  Hellenic 
Gadarene  law,”  |  with  the  supposed  dominion  of  which 
Mr.  Huxley  pastures  his  imagination  ?  Instead  of  this, 
without  the  slightest  idea  of  an  accusation  against  our 
Lord,  the  population,  streaming  forth,  simply  consult 
for  their  own  temporal  interests,  and  beseech  Him  to 
depart  out  of  their  coasts.^ 

The  supply  of  swine  testifies  indeed  to  the  existence 
of  a  demand.  It  may  probably  testify  also  to  the 
existence  of  a  Gentile  class  or  element  in  the  country. 
The  question,  indeed,  which  relates  to  the  use  of  pork  as 
an  article  of  diet  has  by  no  means  that  uniformity  of 
colour,  outside  the  Mosaic  law,  which  Professor  Huxley 
assigns  to  it.  But  it  would  be  tedious  by  entering  upon 
it  to  lengthen  a  paper  already  too  long,  for  we  may 
safely  allow  that  among  the  Syrian  Gentiles  this  diet 
may  have  been  known,  and  may  not  have  entailed  any 
legal  penalty. 

Mr.  Huxley  concludes  the  argumentative  portion  of 


*  Matt.  viii.  34;  Mark  v.  13. 
f  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  976. 

J  Matt.  viii.  34  ;  Mark  v.  17  ;  Luke  viii.  37. 


278 


TIIE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


his  article  by  insisting  that  the  cc  party  of  Galikeans  ”  * 
were  foreigners  in  the  Decapolis,  and  could  have  no 
title,  as  private  individuals,  even  to  vindicate  the  law. 
I  will  not  argue  the  point,  which  is  wholly  immaterial 
to  my  purpose  ;  and  it  may  not  be  easy  to  draw  with 
exactness  the  line  up  to  which  the  private  person  may 
go  of  his  own  motion  in  supporting  established  law.  I 
confine  myself  to  the  following  propositions  : — • 

1.  Both  from  antecedent  likelihoods,  and  from  history, 
there  is  the  strongest  reason  to  believe  that  the  Mosaic 
law  was  the  public  law  of  Gadaris. 

2.  Even  if  it  had  been  relaxed  as  public  law  (which  it 
plainly  had  not),  yet  those  traditionally  bound  to  it 
would  not  have  been  released  from  the  moral  obligation 
of  obedience,  and  all  the  particulars  go  to  show  that  the 
keepers  of  the  swine  were  thus  bound. 

3.  In  the  enforcement  of  a  law  which  bound  the  con¬ 
science,  our  Lord  would  have  had  an  authority  such  as 
does  not  belong  to  the  private  individual. 

4.  That  the  Gadarenes  should  have  deprecated  any 
recurrence  of  this  interference  with  unlawful  gains,  is 
no  more  wonderful  than  that  the  population  of  the  mari¬ 
time  counties  of  Great  Britain  should,  in  the  days  of 
our  protective  tariff,  have  been  favourable  to  smuggling, 
and  should  even  have  resented,  as  they  did,  the  inter¬ 
ference  of  conscientious  clergymen  whose  duty  it  was  to 
denounce  the  practice. 

5.  That  they  should  have  done  no  more  than  ask  for 
our  Saviour’s  departure,  affords  of  itself  the  strongest 
presumption  that  the  action  in  which  He  co  operated, 
and  which  was  certainly  detrimental,  was  not  illegal. 


*  Nineteenth  Century ,  p.  978, 


THE  SWINE-MIRACLE. 


279 


I  submit  these  observations  upon  an  historical  subject, 
complicated  by  several  difficulties,  with'  all  respect  to 
those  who  differ  from  me.  I  do  not  deny  that  the  popu¬ 
lation  of  Decapolis  was  in  some  sense  a  mixed  popula¬ 
tion,  partially  resembling  that  of  Samaria.*  But  to 
suppose  the  swineherds  to  have  been  punished  by  Christ 
for  pursuing  a  calling  which  to  them  was  an  innocent 
one,  is  to  run  counter  to  every  law  of  reasonable  historic 
interpretation.  I  will  not  assume  that  I  have  even  now 
exhausted  the  subject,  though  I  have  not  knowingly 
omitted  anything  material.  But  Professor  Huxley  is  so 
well  pleased  with  his  own  contentions,  that  he  thinks 
the  occasion  one  suitable  for  pointing  out  the  intellectual 
superiority  to  which  he  has  been  led  up  by  scientific 
training.  I  believe  that  I  have  overthrown  every  one 
of  these  contentions  :  but  I  do  not  think  the  achievement 
such  as  would  warrant  my  concluding  by  paying  myself 
a  compliment. 


*  ‘  Bell.  Jud.’  iii.  3,  2. 


IX. 


THE  PLACE  OF  HERESY  AND  SCHISM  IN 
THE  MODERN  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  A 

1894. 

If  Christ  our  Lord  founded  the  Church  as  a  visible  and 
organised  society,  by  a  commission  from  Himself  ;  if  He 
did  this  in  the  most  definite  and  pointed  way  by  a 
charge,  not  to  the  mass  of  believers  promiscuously,  but  to 
the  Apostles,  whom  He  had  chosen,  and 'whom  in  many 
significant  ways  He  designated  as  His  successors  in 
carrying  forward  the  great  work  of  the  Incarnation  ; 
and,  again,  if  this  charge,  far  from  being  limited  to  the 
brief  term  of  their  personal  careers  upon  earth,  was 
expressly  extended  by  a  promise  of  His  superintending 
presence  with  them  (which  could  only  mean  with  them 
and  their  successors)  until  the  end  of  the  world  ;  if, 
finally,  this  Church  was  to  be  the  great  standing  witness 
in  the  world  for  Him  and  for  the  recovery  of  lost  man¬ 
kind  ;  it  follows  that  a  most  serious  question  arose  here¬ 
upon,  which  may  be  described  in  such  terms  as  these. 
It  relates  to  the  condition  of  any  who,  acknowledging 
Plis  authority,  yet  should  rebel  against  the  jurisdiction 
then  solemnly  constituted,  should  sever  themselves,  in 


Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


281 


doctrine  or  in  communion,  from  His  servants,  and 
should  presume  in  this  way  to  impair  their  witness  and 
to  frustrate  thereby  His  work,  so  far  as  in  them  lay. 

This  question  did  not  escape  the  forethought  of  our 
Saviour,  and  it  was  dealt  with  by  Him  in  the  simplest 
and  most  decisive  manner.  “  If  he  neglect  to  hear  the 
Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a 
publican.”  *  With  this  stringent  law  the  language  of 
the  Apostles  coincides,  and,  most  markedly  perhaps 
among  them  all,  the  language  of  St.  John,  who  was 
especially  the  Apostle  of  love.  The  work  of  heretics 
and  schismatics  was  a  work  of  the  flesh,  and,  like  other 
works  of  the  flesh,  it  excluded  from  salvation.  Thus,  in 
the  face  of  all  hostile  powers,  and  under  the  pressure 
of  its  hostility,  the  unity  of  the  Church  was  maintained, 
and  she  patiently  pursued  her  office  through  the  gloom 
of  this  world  to  the  glory  of  the  next. 

This  I  think  is  a  fair  account  of  heresy  and  schism, 
according  to  the  view  of  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles. 
But  now  there  have  passed  away  well  nigh  two  thousand 
years,  and  enormous  changes  have  been  brought  about. 

The  Church,  whose  light  in  Apostolic  days  was  still, 
so  far  as  regarded  the  world  at  large,  hidden  under  a 
bushel,  by  degrees  became  mistress  of  the  social  and 
moral  forces  which  determined  the  course  of  human 
society,  and  assumed  a  conspicuous  and  triumphant 
position.  That  cruel  overweening  world,  of  which 
Scripture  speaks,  waned  by  degrees  and  dwindled  in  her 
presence,  and  finally  throughout  Christendom  became 
absorbed  in  the  mass  of  baptised  believers.  But  the 
internal  change,  though  it  was  great,  was  not  co-extensive 


*  St.  Matt,  xviii.  17. 


282 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


with  that  on  the  exterior  face.  All  the  elements  of 
evil,  which  at  first  had  carried  on  an  open  warfare  with 
the  Church,  now  wrought  against  her  true  life  and 
spirit  more  subtly  from  within.  The  tone  of  her  life  was 
immensely  lowered,  and  her  witness  for  God  before  the 
world,  which  was  formerly  only  compromised  by  heresy 
and  schism,  was  now  darkened  and  enfeebled  by  latent 
corruption  in  a  thousand  forms.  She  was  still,  how¬ 
ever,  the  heir  of  the  promises  :  the  obligations  of  her 
mission  were  unchanged.  Was  she  still  entitled  as 
before  to  wield  against  those  who  broke  away  from  her 
creed  or  her  communion,  the  thunderbolts  of  the  Most 
High?  Without  doubt  it  was  still  her  duty  to  pray,  as 
she  now  prays,  to  be  delivered  from  the  evils  of  heresy 
and  schism ;  but  when  her  warnings  had  been  slighted, 
and  these  evils  had  come  into  an  existence,  not  only 
active  but  inveterate,  was  she  still  bound,  was  she  now 
even  permitted,  to  act  upon  the  rules  and  to  hold  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  against  the  persons 
chargeable  ? 

I  should  be  inclined  to  reply  that  during  such  periods 
as  the  fourth  century,  when  the  wide  sway  of  the  Arian 
opinion  often  made  it  matter  of  doubt  where  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  in  one  place  or  another,  was  to  be 
found ;  or  in  other  words  with  which  of  two  contending 
bishops  it  was  a  duty  to  hold  communion,  this  darkening 
of  the  evidence  modified  the  moral  character  of  the 
offence.  But  on  the  whole  the  credentials  of  the  Church 
did  not  lose  their  original  clearness,  and  so  long  as  this 
was  the  case,  her  duties  with  respect  to  heresy  and 
schism  remained  without  substantial  change,  and  she 
was  bound  not  to  compromise  the  safety  of  her  spiritual 
children  by  any  use  of  ambiguous  language. 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


Now  it  has  happened  in  certain  cases,  and  it  seems  to 
have  come  about  very  gradually  since  the  Advent,  that 
the  laws  of  religion  have  been  modified  by  circumstance. 
Nothing  can  be  more  broad  and  sweeping  than  the 
denunciations  of  the  Old  Testament,  against  all  attempts 
to  embody  in  images  the  forms  of  living  creatures.  The 
crime  of  idolatry  ranks  in  all  its  pages  with  the  very 
highest  crimes.  But  it  has  been  urged  that,  from  the 
time  when  the  Son  of  God  was  pleased  to  assume  human 
form,  this  law  naturally,  if  insensibly,  underwent  an 
essential  modification.  By  far  the  largest  portion  of  the 
Christian  Church,  gives  a  sanction  to  the  use  for  reli¬ 
gious  purposes  either  of  images  or  of  pictures.  This 
use  is  not  wholly  excluded  from  the  Churches  of  the 
Reformation,  as  may  be  seen  in  Lutheran  countries,  and 
especially  in  Scandinavia.  Not  that  the  dangers  which 
beset  the  employment  of  images  in  religion  have  been 
wholly  removed ;  but  rather  that  they  are  now  in  the 
class  of  dangers  fit  to  be  guarded  against  otherwise 
than  by  absolute  prohibition.  It  is  not  now  with  us  as 
it  was  at  the  period  when  Moses  was  in  Horeb.  The 
world  was  then  generally  given  to  the  practice  of  repre¬ 
senting  God  in  images ;  and  in  many  cases  this  practice, 
especially  in  the  East,  was  associated  with  purposes 
unspeakably  degrading.  The  mission  of  the  Hebrew 
race  absolutely  required  that  the  Divine  idea  should  be 
held  in  sharp  severance  from  every  material  form.  The 
religion  of  the  God-man  has  now  deprived  abuse  of  every 
palliation.  A  new  method  of  procedure  has  to  be 
adopted,  and  the  mere  making  of  the  image  or  picture, 
apart  from  the  cult  paid  to  it,  no  longer  involves  the 
guilt  of  idolatry. 

We  might  perhaps  quote,  as  another  instance  of  the 


284 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


mutability  in  certain  cases  of  great  religious  laws,  the 
case  of  the  law  of  usury,  which  was  prohibited  as 
between  the  members  of  the  chosen  race.  This  prohibi¬ 
tion  appears  to  have  been  incorporated  in  the  Mosaic 
system,  as  a  conservative  expedient  for  the  repression  of 
all  those  economic  changes,  which  seemed  to  threaten  the 
fixity  of  the  Jewish  system.  Hence  the  taking  of  usury 
is  everywhere  denounced  with  vehemence  as  a  moral 
offence.  Yet  our  Saviour  himself,  in  the  parable  of  the 
talents,  appears  to  recognise  interest  upon  money  as  an 
established,  perhaps  as  a  legitimate,  practice.  The 
phrase  itself  has  been  essentially  changed  in  signification  ; 
and  the  whole  prohibitory  system  against  it,  in  whatever 
sense,  may  be  said  to  have  disappeared  from  the  face  of 
Christian  Statute-Books. 

Let  us  see  whether  the  application  of  true  and  just 
principles  to  the  mixed  and  fluctuating  conditions  of  life 
has  undergone,  or  ought  to  undergo,  in  the  case  of 
heresy  and  schism,  any  mitigation  offering  in  some 
respects  an  analogy  with  what  has  happened  as  to  the 
law  of  idolatry  and  the  law  of  usury. 

Now  the  guilt  of  any  offence  whatever,  varies  inversely 
with  the  strength  and  clearness  of  the  evidence  which 
establishes  its  criminality.  And  surely  it  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  the  evidence  which  condemns  heresy  and 
schism  has  been  greatly  darkened,  and  therefore  greatly 
weakened,  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Church  was  then  fresh  from  the  hands  of  her 
Divine  Founder.  The  principles  of  life  within  her  were 
so  powerful  as  to  preclude  any  allowed  manifestation 
of  the  spirit  of  heresy  or  of  schism,  or  to  render  its 
suppression  easy.  She  was  governed  by  those  who  had 
personally  known  the  Lord  :  whose  authority  was 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


285 


attested  by  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit ;  by 
men,  some  of  whose  brethren  had  already  sealed,  and 
who  might  themselves  at  any  moment  be  summoned 
personally  to  seal,  their  testimony  with  their  blood. 
The  unity  of  the  Church  was  a  fact  as  patent  to  those 
who  came  into  contact  Avith  it,  as  the  unity  of  the  sun 
in  heaven,  and  to  deny  the  one  was  like  denying  the 
other. 

But  before  three  centuries  had  passed,  the  Church 
was  at  variance  for  considerable  periods  with  itself,  both 
in  communion  and  in  doctrine,  and  these  periods  were 
gradually  elongated  into  something  like  a  continuous 
chain.  During  the  agonising  struggles  of  the  fourth 
century  with  Arianism,  the  intensity  of  which  it  is 
difficult  for  modern  Christendom  to  conceive,  where  was 
the  light  of  the  city  on  the  hill  1  or  what  could  be  -the 
responsibility  of  the  individual  Christian,  for  threading 
his  way  through  the  mazes  of  theological  controversy  to 
the  truth  On  minor  cases  it  is  needless  to  dwell ; 
almost  needless  to  point  out  that  in  cases  such  as  that 
of  Montanism,  the  party  adjudged  to  be  heretical  might 
well  seem,  to  the  inexperienced  eye,  as  the  stoutest 
attestors  of  the  antagonism  between  Church  and  world, 
which  all  knew  to  be  a  fundamental  truth  of  the  Gospel. 
The  force  of  Athanasian  faith  proved  eventually  sufficient 
to  bring  the  Arian  heresy  to  its  downfall,  and  the 
accompanying  schisms  to  a  close.  But  who  does  not  feel 
that  these  facts  of  history  remaining  on  its  page  cast 
some  haze  upon  the  clear  light  of  the  Apostolic  doctrine 
of  schism,  and  abate  the  sharpness  of  its  edge  ?  Still, 
as  facts,  they  passed  away,  and  unity  was  admitted  in 
principle  as  the  universal  law. 

But  experience  had  yet  to  produce  larger  crops  of 


286 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


evidence  all  working  in  the  same  direction.  The 
eleventh  century  established  the  rupture  between  the 
Greek  and  the  Latin  Churches  which  has  never  yet  been 
closed  ;  but  which  on  the  contrary  has,  it  is  to  be  feared , 
been  seriously  widened  by  the  proceedings  of  the  V atican 
Council  in  1870  ;  proceedings  which  appear  to  have  so 
greatly  sharpened  the  edges  of  Papal  infallibility.  But 
the  division  established  between  East  and  West  did  not 
end  there.  There  grew  up  in  the  fourteenth  century  a 
division  between  West  and  West,  between  Home  and 
Avignon,  under  which  the  English  Christian  found 
himself  excommunicated  in  Scotland,  and  the  Scotch  in 
England.  Into  this  labyrinth  we  need  not  further  enter. 
The  quarrel  reached  its  close ;  but  not  in  full  until  the 
fifteenth  century  had  well  advanced.  Even  then  there 
remained  the  formidable  question  to  be  settled,  which 
party  had  been  in  true  corporate  union  with  the  Chair  of 
St.  Peter.  Any  answer  to  this  question  which  may  be 
attempted,  appears  to  involve  consequences  beset  with 
the  most  formidable  difficulties.  If  either  party  be 
excluded,  then  the  light  of  half  Western  Christendom 
had  been  extinct  for  half  a  century.  If  on  the  other 
hand  it  be  attempted  to  include  them  all  by  the  doctrine 
of  an  upright  intention,  that  doctrine,  when  once 
admitted  with  respect  to  Church  communion,  may  be 
found  to  render  all  sharp  application  of  the  argument 
against  schismatics  (nor  is  the  case  of  heretics  in  my 
opinion  materially  different),  in  truth  against  all  non- 
Boman  Christians,  nearly  impracticable.  Meantime  the 
East  had  all  along  its  divisions  also,  and  Churches 
tainted  with  heresy  (under  the  decrees,  for  example, 
against  Nestorius)  still  subsisted,  and  have  continued 
to  subsist  down  to  the  present  day.  Moreover,  they 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


287 


appear  to  enjoy  equally  with  the  Orthodox  Church  the 
prerogative  of  perpetuity. 

After  this  it  seems  almost  needless  to  refer  to  the 
further  and  great  aggravations  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries.  But  to  find  a  way  of  escape 
from  their  significance,  surely  implies  a  marvellous 
faculty  of  shutting  the  eyes  to  facts.  The  Continental 
Reformation  is  now  nearly  four  hundred  years  old.  It 
underwent  in  the  sixteenth  century  much  vicissitude. 
But,  on  the  whole,  sects  and  parties  have  settled  down. 
The  boundaries  of  sect  now  undergo  no  great  changes. 
Protestantism  unable  to  make  good  its  footing  south 
of  the  Alps,  and  numerically  feeble  in  France,  yet 
remains  upon  the  whole,  after  this  long  experience,  a 
hard,  inexpugnable,  intractable,  indigestible  fact.  In 
some  countries,  as  in  Scandinavia,  it  enjoys  even  exclu¬ 
sive  possession.  Who  can  fail  to  be  struck  with  the 
fact,  that  the  distinctions  between  the  fugitive  and  the 
permanent  seem  to  be  in  a  measure  broken  down?  It 
was  not  so  of  old.  The  Gnostic,  the  Arian,  the  Donatist, 
the  Monophysite,  where  are  they?  When  we  compare 
their  meteoric  passage  over  the  scene,  with  the  massive 
and  by  no  means  merely  controversial  Protestantism 
of  Northern  Europe,  are  we  not  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  must  be  some  profound  and  subtle  difference 
in  the  causes  which  have  issued  in  such  a  signal  con¬ 
trariety  of  results?  It  does  not  seem  altogether  like 
the  case  of  the  wicked  man,  flourishing  for  a  moment 
like  the  green  bay  tree,  but  presently  sought  for  and 
nowhere  to  be  found. 

And  if  this  be  true  as  to  the  Protestantism  of  Con¬ 
tinental  Europe,  is  it  not  even  more  vividly  true  of  the 
singularly  active  and  progressive  Protestantism  (other 


288  HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 

than  Anglican)  of  Great  Britain  h  I  speak  of  that 
Protestantism — Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Independent, 
and  the  rest — which  has  not  only  built  itself  steadily 
upward,  without  aid,  speaking  generally,  from  any  other 
than  internal  and  voluntary  resources,  but  has  repro¬ 
duced  itself  in  America,  endowed  there  also  with  much 
of  this  same  reproductive  energy,  and  has  dotted  nearly 
all  barbarous  countries  with  the  light  of  its  Christian 
Missions. 

I  have  not  here  spoken  of  the  Church  of  England, 
which  holds  a  remarkable,  and,  in  some  degree,  a 
peculiar,  position  of  its  own  in  Christendom.  But  I 
must  admit  that,  at  periods  not  wholly  beyond  my 
memory,  and  in  appreciably  large  portions  of  the 
country,  it  has  appeared  as  if  the  hands  principally 
charged  with  the  training  of  souls  for  God,  were  the 
hands  mainly  or  only  of  Nonconformists.  If  in  the 
abstract  it  be  difficult  to  find  justification  for  English 
Nonconformity,  yet  when  we  view  it  as  a  fact,  it  must 
surely  command  our  respect  and  sympathy.  If  so  we 
cannot  dare  to  curse  what  God  seems  in  many  ways 
to  have  blessed  and  honoured,  in  electing  it  to  perform 
duties  neglected  by  others,  and  in  emboldening  it  to 
take  a  forward  part,  not  limited  to  our  narrow  shores, 
on  behalf  of  the  broadest  interests  of  Christianity. 
Here,  indeed,  I  may  speak  as  one  who  in  some  degree 
at  least  knows  that  whereof  he  is  talking.  I  have  seen 
and  known  and  but  too  easily  could  quote  the  cases,  in 
which  the  Christian  side  of  political  controversies  has 
been  largely  made  over  by  the  members  of  the  English 
Church  to  the  championship  of  Nonconformists.  I  take 
it,  for  example,  to  be  beyond  all  question  that,  had  the 
matter  depended  wholly  on  the  sentiment  and  action  of 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


289 


the  National  Church,  the  Act  for  the  extinction  of 
negro  slavery  would  not  have  been  passed  so  soon  as  in 
the  year  1833. 

There  are  civil  cases  when,  though  we  may  not  be 
able  to  say  the  rebel  is  in  the  right,  yet  we  can  clearly 
see  that  the  possessor  of  power  who  drove  him  to  be 
a  rebel,  is  far  more  profoundly  in  the  wrong.  It  may 
perhaps  be  that  something  of  a  similar  situation  has 
been  brought  about  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  that 
antichristian  ambitions,  working  under  some  thin 
Christian  garb,  have  in  a  certain  sense  sapped  and 
mined  foundations,  in  such  manner  that,  through  long 
addiction  to  and  tyrannical  enforcement  of  unreasonable 
claims,  it  has  eventually  become  impracticable  to  pro¬ 
cure  the  allowance  of  any  just  weight  to  claims  which 
are  reasonable. 

If  there  be  anything  of  force  or  justice  in  the  fore¬ 
going  remarks,  they  lead  us  directly  and  undeniably  to 
an  important  consequence. 

Nothing  can  be  more  plausible,  or  at  first  sight 
stranger,  than  the  case  which  can  be  made  for  itself  by 
the  spirit  of  proselytism ;  although  our  Saviour  made  a 
reference  to  it  which  cannot  be  encouraging  to  its  more 
reckless  votaries.  Let  us  see  what  that  case  really 
comes  to.  Truth,  it  will  be  truly  said,  is  the  possession 
most  precious  to  the  soul  of  man.  If  I  am  so  happy 
as  to  possess  the  truth,  as  the  question  supposes  it,  am 
I  to  stand  by  inactive,  and  see  my  neighbour  perish  for 
the  lack  of  the  sustenance  which  it  supplies  ?  The  case, 
without  doubt,  is  susceptible  of  startling  presentation. 
But  let  us  look  into  it  a  little  more  closely.  Who 
assures  me  that  this  truth  of  yours,  on  which  you  so 
naturally  rely,  is  certified  by  any  other  witness,  than 

i.  u 


290 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


the  witness  of  your  own  private  spirit?  You  will 
hardly  pretend  that  it  has  come  to  you  with  the  stamp 
and  seal  of  a  Divine  revelation,  or  that  you  are  entitled 
to  proclaim,  like  one  of  the  ancient  prophets,  “  Thus 
saith  the  Lord.”  Holy  Scripture  provides  us  with 
instances  of  the  danger  of  substituting  the  witness  of 
another  person’s  private  spirit  for  our  own.*  Your 
supposed  certainty  is  but  your  sincere  persuasion ;  a 
great  warranty  without  doubt  for  yourself,  but  none 
whatever  for  me  your  neighbour.  Unless,  indeed, 
you  can  show  me  that  you  have  received  from  on 
high,  a  commission  to  instruct  mankind  in  that  which 
you  have  learned  yourself ;  but  such  a  commission, 
which,  if  it  is  to  rule  me,  must  be  exhibited  in  a 
manner  which  I  can  understand,  you  do  not  attempt 
to  show.  And  thus,  or  in  some  way  like  this,  it  is  that 
the  hot  proselytiser  ought  to  learn  to  pay  some  of  that 
respect  to  the  convictions  of  his  neighbours,  which  he 
pays  so  largely  to  his  own. 

Let  us  show  a  little  more  particularly  why  and 
wherefore  such  respect  ought  to  be  paid. 

When  the  proselytiser  |  begins  his  operations,  his  first 
act  is  to  plant  his  battering-ram,  stronger  or  weaker  as 
the  case  may  be,  against  the  fabric  of  a  formed  belief. 
It  may  be  a  belief  well  formed  or  ill ;  but  it  is  all  which 
the  person  attacked  has  to  depend  upon,  and  where  it  is 
sincere  and  warm,  even  if  unenlightened,  the  prosely¬ 
tiser,  properly  so  called,  seems  to  have  a  special  zest  in 
the  attack.  His  purpose  is  to  batter  it  down,  to  cart 


*  1  Kings  xiii. 

f  Some  sensible  remarks  on  this  subject  will  be  found  in  the  corre¬ 
spondence  of  Cowper,  whei’e  possibly  they  would  not  be  looked  for. 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


291 


away  the  ruins,  and  then  to  set  about  building  up  some¬ 
thing  else,  which  he  has  inwardly  projected,  in  its  stead. 
His  purpose  is  constructive  :  but  his  activity  is  bent 
in  the  first  instance  to  destroy.  He  little  knows  how 
easy  is  the  last-named  operation,  how  difficult  the  first. 
When  he  has  broken  to  pieces  the  creed  or  system 
at  which  his  great  guns  are  aimed,  what  right  or  power 
has  he  to  dig  new  foundations  for  a  mind  which  is  in  no 
way  bound  to  his  allegiance?  He  has  led  his  victim 
out  into  the  desert,  to  choose  for  himself  amidst  a 
thousand  paths.  It  is  with  a  just,  though  not  an 
exclusive,  regard  to  these  principles,  as  I  conceive,  that 
the  wisest  men  have  proceeded. 

It  was  my  lot  to  visit  Munich  in  the  autumn  of 
the  year  1845  for  a  purpose  purely  domestic.  This 
purpose  required  me  to  call  upon  Dr.  Dellinger,  then  (I 
may  almost  say)  the  favourite  theologian  of  the  Latin 
Church  in  succession  to  Mohler,  and  undeniably  a 
person  of  essentially  large,  historic,  and  philosophic 
mind.  He  gave  me  his  time  and  thoughts  with  a 
liberality  that  excited  my  astonishment,  and  I  derived 
from  him  much  that  was  valuable  in  explanation  and 
instruction,  nor  did  he  scorn  my  young  and  immature 
friendship.  For  the  Church  of  England,  and  for  its 
members,  among  whom  I  counted,  the  period  was  one  of 
disaster  and  dismay ;  it  was  the  hour  of  Newman’s 
secession ;  the  field  of  controversy  was  dark  with  a  host 
of  fugitives.  But  in  that  trying  hour,  Dr.  Dollinger, 
while  he  patiently  laboured  to  build  me  up  in  Christian 
belief,  never  spoke  to  me  a  single  word  that  smacked  of 
proselytism.  He  would  not  (so  I  suppose)  destroy 
the  half  truth,  as  the  first  step  to  the  introduction 
of  (what  he  would  think)  the  whole.  I  should  define 


292 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


the  spirit  of  proselytism  as  a  morbid  appetite  for  effect¬ 
ing  conversions,  founded  too  often  upon  an  overweening 
self-confidence  and  self-love. 

The  antidote  to  this  spirit,  is  to  be  found  in  a  careful 
regard  to  the  whole  circumstances  of  the  case  and 
position  of  the  person  concerned.  The  first  requisite 
is  to  distinguish  markedly  between  the  ringleader  in 
a  heresy  or  schism,  and  his  followers ;  and  the  next 
to  distinguish,  still  more  markedly,  between  the  first 
generation  of  the  followers,  and  their  descendants. 

The  great,  I  might  say  the  enormous,  difference  which 
subsists  between  the  founder  of  a  heresy  and  those  who 
inherit  it  from  the  founder,  may  be  illustrated  by 
examining  the  nature  of  the  term. 

The  word  heresy  does  not  in  itself  imply  poisonous  or 
mischievous  opinion.  It  means  self-chosen  and  self- 
formed  opinion.  The  Gospel  is  not  chosen  or  formed  by 
us  :  but  fashioned  by  God  and  tendered  for  our  accept¬ 
ance.  Here  lies  the  responsibility  of  the  arch-heretic  or 
heretic  proper :  God  offers  him  something,  he  puts  it 
aside,  and  substitutes  for  it  another  thing. 

But  in  the  case  of  his  heirs  and  successors,  there  is  no 
supposition.  Not  through  their  own  act,  but  through 
the  act  of  the  heretic  proper,  the  Divine  offer  has  been 
hid  from  their  view.  If  and  so  far  as  the  heresy 
involves  in  itself  perversion  of  the  Christian  dogma, 
they  are  the  sufferers.  But  here  we  are  dealing  with 
error,  not  heresy.  With  the  speciality  of  heresy, 
namely,  self-appointed  choice  in  lieu  of  acceptance  from 
the  hand  of  God,  they  have  nothing  to  do.  The  heretics 
of  the  Apostolic  times  were  founders,  self-choosers,  and 
thus  heretics  proper.  The  ostensible  heretics  of  our 
times  are  consequential  and  passive,  and  do  not  fall 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


293 


within  the  proper  compass  of  the  term,  unless,  and  then 
only  in  so  far  as,  they  make  themselves  party  to  the 
original  rejection  of  a  Divine  tender. 

A  petty  and  most  unwarrantable  schism  was  en¬ 
gendered  in  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland,  some 
thirty  or  forty  years  ago  :  but  within  that  obscure  and 
abstractedly  unblessed  fold,  there  grew  up,  as  I  had 
occasion  to  know,  some  young  persons  of  a  singular 
holiness.  And  what  we  ought  to  bear  in  mind  is  this  ; 
the  young  Protestant,  Nonconformist,  Quaker,  or  other 
(supposed)  imperfect  believer,  has  been  reared,  like  the 
young  Roman  Catholic  or  Eastern,  in  a  home.  He  has 
been  taught  about  God,  to  believe  in  Him,  to  love  Him, 
to  obey  Him,  in  the  lap  of  a  mother.  He  holds  his 
religion  (though  he  may  not  know  it),  as  the  mass  of 
Continental  Christians  do,  by  tradition.  In  these  first 
convictions  his  mind  and  soul  have  been  trained ;  and 
they  are  entitled  to  respect,  and  to  the  most  considerate 
-  and  tender  treatment,  upon  the  very  same  principles 
as  those  which,  within  the  fold  of  the  hierarchical 
Churches,  fence  round  with  sacredness  the  pious  aspira¬ 
tions  of  the  young.  Maxima  debetur  jpuero  reverentia. 
But  what  is  true  of  the  child  also  adheres  to  the 
adult ;  and,  if  the  tenor  of  this  paper  be  a  sound  one, 
we  must  beware  of  all  that  looks  coldly  or  proudly 
upon  beliefs,  proved  by  experience  to  be  capable  of 
promoting,  in  their  several  degrees,  conformity  to  the 
Divine  will,  and  personal  union  with  the  Saviour  of  the 
world. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  consider  various  objections 
which  may  be  taken  in  perfect  good  faith,  to  the  strain 
of  argument  and  remark,  which  have  been  followed  in 
the  present  paper. 


294 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


It  may  in  the  first  place  be  said  that  I  am  playing 
with  edge-tools  ;  that  the  record  of  Scripture  is  plain 
and  strong,  written  on  the  sacred  page  as  in  characters 
of  fire.  Do  not,  it  will  be  said,  attenuate,  do  not 
explain  away,  a  teaching  which  is  Divine.  You  are 
tempting  your  fellow-creatures  to  walk  in  slippery  paths, 
and  if  they  should  fall  you  will  have  incurred  no  small 
responsibility. 

My  reply  is  as  follows.  In  the  cases  of  idolatry  and 
of  usury,  I  have  sought  to  follow  the  guidance  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  itself ;  and,  it  should  be  remembered  that  Scripture 
is  not  a  stereotype  projected  into  the  world  at  a  given 
time  and  place,  but  is  a  record  of  comprehensive  and 
progressive  teaching,  applicable  to  a  nature  set  under 
providential  discipline,  observant  of  its  wants  which 
must  vary  with  its  growth,  and  adapting  thereto  in  the 
most  careful  manner,  its  provisions. 

What  I  have  attempted,  is  to  distinguish  between  the 
facts  of  heresy  and  schism,  as  they  stood  in  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  age,  and  the  corresponding  facts  as  they  present 
themselves  to  us,  at  a  period  when  the  ark  of  God  has 
weathered  eighteen  hundred  years  of  changeful  sea  and 
sky. 

I  think  it  was  in  the  year  1838  that  the  Rev.  Sir 
William  Palmer  published  his  book  upon  ‘  The  Church,’ 
which  I  suppose  to  be,  perhaps,  the  most  powerful,  and 
least  assailable  defence  of  the  position  of  the  Anglican 
Church  from  the  sixteenth  century,  especially  from  the 
reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth  onwards.  The  book  was 
after  a  few  years  submerged  in  the  general  discredit 
and  discomfiture,  which  followed  upon  the  temporary 
collapse  of  the  Oxford  movement,  consequent  upon  the 
secession  to  the  Latin  Church  of  the  most  powerful 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


295 


genius  among  its  founders.  Father  Perrone,  the  official 
theologian  of  the  Roman  See,  said  of  its  author,  if  my 
memory  serve  me  right,  that  he  was  tJieologorum  Oxonien- 
sium  facile  princess,  and  gracefully  added,  tails  cum  sit, 
utinam  noster  esset.  But  he  applied  in  all  their  vigour  to 
Presbyterians,  Puritans,  and  others,  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  concerning  heresy  and  schism,  and  he 
seemed  ruthlessly  to  cast  them  and  their  communions 
out  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  I  remember  feeling  at 
the  time  the  incongruity  of  such  language.  In  or  about 
the  year  1874,  the  distinguished  author  published  an 
anonymous  work  under  the  pseudonym  of  Umbra  Oxoni- 
ensis :  as  to  which  Dr.  Dollinger  said  to  me,  “This 
writer  knows  what  he  is  about.”  He  presented  in  truth 
an  essential  alteration  of  his  rigid  and  icy  views  upon 
modern  heresy  and  schism.  Of  the  work  itself  Dr. 
Dollinger  said  that  its  republication,  with  such  enlarge¬ 
ment  or  modification  of  the  text  as  the  lapse  of  half  a 
century  had  rendered  needful,  would  be  “  an  event  for 
Christendom  ”  (ein  Ereigniss  fur  die  Ghristenlieit). 

But  I  turn  to  the  higher  authority  of  Holy  Writ,  and 
the  historic  dealings  of  God  with  His  chosen  people.  I 
ask  the  impartial  reader  to  compare  the  treatment 
awarded  to  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  to  their 
followers,  with  the  providential  method  pursued,  after 
the  great  schism  of  Jeroboam,  with  the  Ten  Tribes  or 
Northern  Kingdom.  Not  that  the  act  of  this  heresiarch 
was  lightly  viewed  :  who,  in  the  teeth  of  all  the  tokens 
continually  displayed  in  Hebrew  history,  “made  Israel 
to  sin.”  So  stood  the  founder ;  but  how  stood  the 
followers  ?  W ere  they  cast  out  from  the  elder  covenant 
and  its  provisions  for  Divine  guidance?  The  account 
given  us  of  the  priesthood  of  the  Northern  Kingdom, 


296 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


with  its  broken  succession,  might  not  of  itself  supply 
an  answer.  But  parallel  with,  not  antagonistic  to,  the 
sacerdotal  orders  ran  the  historic  race  of  prophets. 
The  two  great  functions  might  be  united  in  the  same 
person.  They  were  in  themselves  alike  sacred,  and 
perfectly  distinct.  The  schismatic  body  constituted  the 
majority ;  but  this  could  have  no  determining  effect,  for 
“thou  shalt  not  follow  a  multitude  to  do  eAril.”  On 
grounds,  as  we  may  rest  assured,  quite  distinct  from 
those  of  mere  numerical  preponderance,  the  Northern 
Kingdom  was  still  systematically  made  the  object  of 
rebuke,  encouragement,  or  warning.  To  it  was  addressed 
the  great  representative  ministry  of  Elijah,  the  person 
selected  to  typify  the  prophets  in  the 'grand  vision  of 
the  transfiguration  :  and  his  character  was,  so  to  speak, 
reproduced  in  that  of  the  Baptist.  Their  ruinous  disper¬ 
sion  was  treated  much  like  that  of  the  Jews.  Samari¬ 
tans,  after  the  Advent,  continued  to  be  the  objects  of 
the  tender  regards  of  our  Lord  ;  and  the  recently  re¬ 
covered  Pentateuch  of  the  Samaritan  use,  has  served  to 
show  that  the  people  of  this  motley  nation,  now  so  hard 
to  trace  amidst  the  floods  of  ethnical  change,  still  re¬ 
mained,  either  collectively  or  individually,  within  the 
fence  of  the  vineyard  once  planted  “  on  a  very  fruitful 

hill.” 

I  ask  no  more  than  that  we  should  apply  to  the 
questions  of  heresy  and  schism,  now  that  they  have  been 
permitted,  all  over  Christendom,  to  harden  into  facts 
seemingly  permanent,  and  to  bear  not  thorns  and 
thistles  only,  but  also  grapes  and  figs,  the  principles 
which  Holy  Scripture  has  set  forth  in  the  history  of  the 
two  Hebrew  kingdoms,  and  which  a  just  and  temperate 
use  of  the  method  of  analogy  may  extract  from  the  record. 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


297 


I  now  turn  to  another  objection  which  may  be 
advanced  against  me  from  the  Catholic  churchman’s 
point  of  view.  And  by  the  Catholic  churchman  I  mean 
simply  one  who  adheres  with  firmness  to  the  ancient  or 
Catholic  Creeds  of  the  Church.  These  are  the  Apostolic 
Creed  and  the  (as  commonly  called)  Nicene  Creed  ;  the 
Athanasian  Creed,  however  important  as  a  document 
of  history  and  theology,  occupying  a  different  place. 

It  will  have  been  noticed  that  the  argument  of  these 
pages  points  to  an  alteration  in  the  ancient  modes  of 
dealing  with  those  who  decline  to  accept  these  venerable 
documents.  I  have  shown  that  the  finger-posts  which 
marked  the  way  to  them  have,  in  the  course  of  time, 
been  blurred  by  human  infirmity,  and  I  may  be  asked 
whether  I  propose  to  resign  or  abandon  those  portions 
of  the  old  Creeds  which  do  not  now  command,  as  they 
did  four  centuries  ago,  an  universal  acceptance  ?  For 
instance,  “  I  believe  in  one  Baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins.”  For  a  section  of  Christendom,  not  inconsiderable 
in  numbers,  and  as  I  conceive  growing  in  magnitude 
relatively  to  the  whole,  these  words,  I  fear,  convey  no 
very  definite  meaning,  and  are  in  no  sense  an  article  of 
faith.  I  mean  the  non-Episcopal  Protestants,  especially 
those  of  the  English  tongue.  We  are  not,  it  seems,  to 
condemn  them  as  they  would  have  been  condemned  of 
old  for  contumacy  in  the  non-acceptance  of  this  article  : 
but  we  are,  in  the  rather  hollow  phraseology  of  the  day, 
to  dwell  much  on  the  matters  in  which  we  agree,  little 
on  those  in  which  we  differ  ;  a  sentiment  capable  of 
either  wise  or  unwise  application,  but  sometimes  put 
forward  in  a  thoroughly  onesided  spirit,  and  intended  to 
convey  as  its  true  sense  that  we  are  to  make  light  of  our 
differences  with  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  sixteenth 


298 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


century,  but  as  much  as  we  please  of  any  points  in  con¬ 
troversy  with  the  great  Latin  and  Eastern  communions  ; 
as  if  the  sixteenth  century  of  our  era  had  been  favoured 
with  a  new,  and  even  with  a  more  authoritative,  repub¬ 
lication  of  the  Gospel. 

Is  it  the  effect,  it  may  be  asked,  the  drift  of  these 
explanations,  to  land  us  in  the  substitution  for  our 
ancient  and  historical  Christianity,  of  what  is  known  as 
undenominational  religion  ? 

This  is  no  trivial  question,  especially  in  Great  Britain 
and  North  America.  For  in  them  subsist  great  num¬ 
bers  of  religionists  organised  in  bodies  which  really 
present  few  or  no  salient  points  of  difference.  The 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  might  have  appeared  to  raise 
such  a  point,  when  Baptism  was  conceived  to  convey 
with  Divine  authority  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace. 
But  in  proportion  as  the  minds  of  men  are  staggered  at 
such  a  doctrine,  and  as  Baptism  consequently  resolves 
itself  into  a  becoming  and  convenient  form,  the  bodies 
known  as  Independents  and  Baptists,  counted  by 
millions  respectively,  may  seem  to  find  their  warrant  for 
severance  from  one  another  somewhat  obscured.  And 
as  in  parts  of  Great  Britain,  and  in  most  parts  of  North 
America,  these  non-Episcopal  Protestants  constitute  the 
bulk  of  professing  Christians,  we  cannot  wonder,  and 
should  not  complain,  if  they  are  more  and  more  laid 
hold  of  by  the  idea,  that  the  contentions  of  Anglicans, 
and  even  of  Roman  Catholics  or  Easterns,  may  properly 
be  overridden  with  regard  to  their  sectional  peculiarities 
and  may  be  justly  required  to  submit  to  laws  which 
impose,  in  schools  for  the  education  of  the  young  or 
otherwise,  something  that  is  called  undenominational 
religion.  Are  not  belief  in  Christ,  and  union  with 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


*299 


Christ,  the  main,  the  all-important  matters,  and  why 
should  we  not  together  put  forward  the  assertions  in 
which  we  agree,  and  leave  to  the  separate  care  of  those 
who  hold  them  and  think  them  material  all  adventitious 
provisions  which  are  supplementary  to  this  grand  and 
central  purpose  of  the  Gospel  ?  A  purpose  which  still 
blazes,  as  it  were,  in  the  heavens  without  obscuration 
before  our  eyes,  while  we  ourselves  confess  that  the 
tokens  necessary  to  make  good  the  claims  of  this  or  that 
communion  to  our  allegiance,  have  been  in  the  course  of 
time  obscured. 

A  few  words  then  are  necessary  on  the  nature  of  un¬ 
denominational  religion. 

The  idea  conveyed  in  this  phrase  with  awkwardness 
characteristically  modern,  has  in  my  opinion  two  aspects 
absolutely  distinct.  One  of  them  is  in  the  highest 
degree  cheering  and  precious.  The  other  aspect  dis¬ 
guises  a  pitfall,  into  which  whosoever  is  precipitated 
will  probably  find  that  the  substance  of  the  Gospel  has 
escaped,  or  is  fast  escaping,  from  his  grasp.  With  the 
former  of  them  I  first  proceed  to  deal,  and  very  briefly. 

I  do  not  know  on  earth  a  more  blessed  subject  of 
contemplation  than  that  which  I  should  describe  as 
follows.  There  are,  it  may  be,  upon  earth  four  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  of  professing  Christians.  There  is  no 
longer  one  fold  under  one  visible  shepherd :  and  the 
majority  of  Christians  (such  I  take  it  now  to  be,  though 
the  minority  is  a  large  one,)  is  content  with  its  one  shep¬ 
herd  in  heaven,  and  with  the  other  provisions  He  has 
made  on  earth.  His  flock  is  broken  up  into  scores,  it 
may  be  hundreds,  of  sections.  These  sections  are  not  at 
peace  but  at  war.  Nowhere  are  they  too  loving  to  one 
another  •  for  the  most  part  love  is  hardly  visible  among 


300 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


them.  Each  makes  it  a  point  to  understand  his  neigh¬ 
bours  not  in  the  best  sense,  but  in  the  worst  :  and  the 
thunder  of  anathema  is  in  the  air.  But  they  all  profess 
the  Gospel.  And  what  is  the  Gospel?  In  the  old- 
fashioned  mind  and  language  of  the  Church,  it  is  ex¬ 
pressed  as  to  its  central  truths  in  very  few  and  brief 
words  ;  it  lies  in  those  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  and  the 
Incarnation  of  Christ,  which  it  cost  the  Christian  flock 
in  their  four  first  centuries  such  tears,  such  prayers, 
such  questionings,  such  struggles,  to  establish.  Since 
those  early  centuries  men  have  multiplied  upon  the 
earth.  Disintegration  within  the  Church,  which  was 
an  accident  or  an  exception,  has  become  a  rule  :  a  final, 
solid,  and  inexorable  fact,  sustained  by  opinion,  law, 
tendency,  and  the  usage  of  many  generations.  But 
with  all  this  segregation,  and  not  only  division  but 
conflict  of  minds  and  interests,  the  answer  given  by  the 
four  hundred  and  fifty  millions,  or  by  those  who  were 
best  entitled  to  speak  for  them,  to  the  question  what  is 
the  Gospel,  is  still  the  same.  With  exceptions  so  slight, 
that  we  may  justly  set  them  out  of  the  reckoning,  the 
reply  is  still  the  same  as  it  was  in  the  Apostolic  age, 
the  central  truth  of  the  Gospel  lies  in  the  Trinity  and  the 
Incarnation,  in  the  God  that  made  us,  and  the  Saviour 
that  redeemed  us.  When  I  consider  what  human 
nature  and  human  history  have  been,  and  how  feeble  is 
the  spirit  in  its  warfare  with  the  flesh,  I  bow  my  head 
in  amazement  before  this  mighty  moral  miracle,  this 
marvellous  concurrence  evolved  from  the  very  heart  of 
discord. 

Such,  as  I  apprehend,  is  the  undenominational  religion 
of  heaven,  of  the  blissful  state.  It  represents  perfected 
union  with  Christ,  and  conformity  to  the  will  of  God, 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


301 


the  overthrowing  of  the  great  rebellion,  and  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  perpetual  Eden,  now  enriched  with  all  the 
trophies  of  redemption,  with  all  the  testing  and  ripen¬ 
ing  experiences  through  which  the  Almighty  Father  has 
conducted  so  many  sons  to  glory.  It  is  the  fair  fabric 
now  exhibited  in  its  perfection,  which  could  afford  to 
drop,  and  has  dropped,  all  the  scaffolding  supplied  by 
the  Divine  Architect  in  His  wisdom  for  the  rearing  of 
the  structure.  The  whole  process,  from  first  to  last,  is 
a  normal  process,  and  has  been  wrought  out  exclusively 
by  the  use  of  the  means  provided  for  it  in  the  spiritual 
order.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  diversity  of  means, 
God  the  Holy  Ghost  has  been  the  worker  ;  and  the  world, 
which  Christ  lived  and  died  to  redeem,  has  been  the 
scene.  In  some  cases  the  auxiliary  apparatus  was 
elaborate  and  rich,  in  others  it  was  elementary  and 
simple,  but  in  all  it  was  employed,  and  made  effectual 
for  its  aim,  by  the  hand  of  the  Almighty  and  Allwise 
Designer. 

Here  is  the  genuine  unclenominationalism  ;  now  let  us 
turn  to  the  spurious. 

From  every  page  of  the  Gospel  we  find  that  the  great 
message  to  be  conveyed  to  the  world,  in  order  to  its  re¬ 
covery  from  sin,  was  to  be  transmitted  through  a  special 
organisation.  I  do  not  enter  on  any  of  the  questions 
controverted  among  believers  as  to  the  nature  of  this 
organisation,  whether  it  was  the  Popedom,  or  the  Epis¬ 
copate,  or  the  Presbyterate,  or  the  Christian  flock  at 
large  consecrated  and  severed  from  the  world  by  Bap¬ 
tism.  The  point  on  which  alone  I  now  dwell  is  that 
there  was  a  society,  that  this  society  was  spiritual,  that 
it  lay  outside  the  natural  and  the  civil  order.  These  had 
their  own  places,  purposes,  and  instruments  ;  they  were 


302 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


qualified  to  earn  a  blessing  in  the  legitimate  use  of  those 
instruments  within  their  own  sphere,  or  might  degrade 
and  destroy  them,  by  ambitiously  and  profanely  employ¬ 
ing  them  for  purposes  for  which  they  were  not  intended 
by  the  Most  High. 

Nowhere,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  is  this  essential 
difference  between  the  temporal  and  the  spiritual  king¬ 
doms  laid  down  with  a  bolder  and  firmer  hand,  than  in 
the  confessional  documents  of  the  Scottish  Presbyterian 
system.  It  may  be  due  to  that  Christian  courage,  that 
Scottish  Presbyterianism  has  been  found  strong  enough 
to  exhibit  in  this  nineteenth  century  of  ours,  examples 
of  self-sacrifice  and  faith,  which  have  drawn  forth 
tributes  of  admiration  from  the  Christian  world  at  large. 
Conversely,  of  all  the  counterfeits  of  religion  there  is  in 
my  view  none  so  base  as  that  which  passes  current  under 
the  name  of  Erastianism,  and  of  which  it  has  been  my 
privilege  to  witness,  during  the  course  of  the  present 
century,  the  gradual  decline  and  almost  extinction, 
especially  among  the  luminaries  of  the  political  world. 
This  is  not  a  question  between  a  clergy  and  a  laity ;  but 
between  the  Church  and  the  world.  Divine  revelation 
has  a  sphere,  no  less  than  a  savour  of  its  own.  It  dwelt 
of  old  with  the  prophets,  the  priests,  and  the  congrega¬ 
tion  ;  it  now  dwells  with  the  Christian  people,  rulers 
and  ruled ;  and  this  strictly  in  their  character  as 
Christian  people,  as  subjects  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost 
engaged  with  them  in  the  holy  warfare,  which  began 
with  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world,  and  which  can 
never  end  but  with  its  expulsion.  Foul  fall  the  day, 
when  the  persons  of  this  world  shall,  on  whatever  pre¬ 
text,  take  into  their  uncommissioned  hands  the  manipu¬ 
lation  of  the  religion  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  The 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


303 


State,  labouring  in  its  own  domain,  is  a  great,  nay  a 
venerable,  object ;  so  is  the  family.  These  are  the 
organic  units,  constitutive  of  human  societies.  Let  the 
family  transgress  and  usurp  the  functions  of  the  State  ; 
its  aberrations  will  be  short,  and  a  power  it  cannot 
resist  will  soon  reduce  its  action  within  proper  limits. 
But  the  State  is,  in  this  world,  the  master  of  all  coercive 
means  ;  and  its  usurpations,  should  they  occur,  cannot 
be  checked  by  any  specific  instruments  included  among 
standing  social  provisions.  If  the  State  should  think 
proper  to  frame  new  creeds  by  cutting  the  old  ones  into 
pieces  and  throwing  them  into  the  caldron  to  be  re¬ 
boiled,  we  have  no  remedy,  except  such  as  may  lie 
hidden  among  the  resources  of  the  providence  of  God. 
It  is  fair  to  add  that  the  State  is  in  this  matter  beset  by 
severe  temptations ;  the  vehicle  through  which  these 
temptations  work  will  probably,  in  this  country  at  least, 
be  supplied  by  popular  education. 

The  Church,  disabled  and  discredited  by  her  divisions, 
has  found  it  impracticable  to  assert  herself  as  the  uni¬ 
versal  guide.  Among  the  fragments  of  the  body,  a 
certain  number  have  special  affinities,  and  in  particular 
regions  or  conjunctures  of  circumstances  it  would  be 
very  easy  to  frame  an  undenominational  religion  much 
to  their  liking,  divested  of  many  salient  points  needful 
in  the  view  of  historic  Christendom  for  a  complete 
Christianity.  Such  a  scheme  the  State  might  be  tempted 
to  authorise  by  law  in  public  elementary  teaching,  nay, 
to  arm  it  with  exclusive  and  prohibitory  powers  as 
against  other  and  more  developed  methods  which  the 
human  conscience,  sole  legitimate  arbiter  in  these 
matters,  together  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  may  have 
devised  for  itself  in  the  more  or  less  successful  effort  to 


304 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


obtain  this  guidance.  It  is  in.  this  direction  that  we 
have  recently  been  moving,  and  the  motion  is  towards  a 
point  where  a  danger  signal  is  already  lifted.  Such  an 
undenominational  religion  as  this  could  have  no  promise 
of  permanence.  None  from  authority,  for  the  assumed 
right  to  give  it  is  the  negation  of  all  authority.  None 
from  piety,  for  it  involves  at  the  very  outset  the  sur¬ 
render  of  the  work  of  the  Divine  kingdom  into  the 
hands  of  the  civil  ruler.  None  from  policy ;  because 
any  and  every  change  that  may  take  place  in  the  sense 
of  the  constituent  bodies,  or  any  among  them,  will  supply 
for  each  successive  change  precisely  the  same  warrant  as 
was  the  groundwork  of  the  original  proceeding.  What¬ 
ever  happens,  let  Christianity  keep  its  own  acts  to  its 
own  agents,  and  not  make  them  over  to  hands  which 
would  justly  be  deemed  profane  and  sacrilegious  when 
they  came  to  trespass  on  the  province  of  the  sanctuary. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  another  aspect  of  this  interesting 
examination. 

Thus  far  it  may  be  said  we  have  been  constantly 
extenuating  the  responsibilities  which  attach  to  heresy 
and  schism,  and  tampering  with  the  securities  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  true  Apostolic  doctrine.  If  it  may 
be  said  the  claims  of  rival  communions  to  demand  adhe¬ 
sion  with  authority  are  now  thus  confused  or  balanced, 
it  follows  that  Christianity  has  been  deprived  of  some 
portion  at  least  of  the  favouring  evidences  on  which  it 
had  to  rely  when  ushered  into  the  world ;  and  thus  a 
diminution  has  been  effected  in  the  aggressive  force,  by 
means  of  which  the  Gospel  had  to  convert  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world,  into  the  kingdoms  of  our  God  and  of  His 
Christ.  And  such  without  doubt  is  the  first  result 
of  the  argument  as  it  has  been  set  out.  But  let  us  see, 


heresy  and  schism. 


305 


if  this  be  an  evil,  whether  it  is  not  one  for  which  in 
another  portion  of  the  field  that  has  been  opened,  we 
have  an  ample  compensation  ;  and  whether  the  spirit  of 
faction  which  prevails  so  lamentably  in  religious  divisions, 
has  not  been  made  to  minister  to  the  very  purpose  over 
Which  it  had  seemed  to  exercise  so  fatal  an  agency. 

When  two  powers  or  parties  are  very  sharply  divided  in 
controversy,  and  when  the  force  of  the  old  Adam  seems 
to  enthrone  this  hostility  as  the  ruling  motive  of  their 
conduct,  it  is  apt  to  follow  that  great  additional 
emphasis  and  efficacy  is  given  to  their  testimony  on 
the  points  where  it  is  accordant.  Take,  for  example,  the 
case  of  the  lately  discovered  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  The 
enmity  which  subsisted  between  Samaritans  and  Jews 
was  an  overpowering  enmity,  which  reached  the  point  of 
social  excommunication  •  for  the  Jews  had  “  no  dealings 
with  the  Samaritans.”  Under  these  circumstances,  if 
either  party  could  have  detected  the  other,  as  implicated 
in  the  offence  of  altering  or  corrupting  the  great  tradi¬ 
tionary  treasure  of  the  Torah,  it  is  quite  certain  that  the 
accusation  would  have  been  made,  and  would  have  been 
turned  to  the  best  possible  account.  When  the  capacity 
and  the  disposition  to  expose  negligence  or  fraud  existed 
on  each  side  and  in  the  highest  degree,  the  absence  of 
any  charge,  and  the  absolute  concurrence  as  to  the  great 
document,  afford  us  the  highest  possible  assurance  of  the 
integrity  of  the  record. 

The  same  argument  is  applicable  as  between  J ews  and 
Christians,  and  within  its  proper  limits  to  the  integrity 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

Now  let  us  ask  whether  and  how  far  a  similar  argu¬ 
ment  applies  to  the  case  of  the  Christian  Church  rent  by 
schisms,  and  the  Christian  faith  disturbed  and  defaced  by 


x 


306 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


heresies.  We  have  before  us  a  very  Babel  of  claimants 
for  the  honours  of  orthodoxy  and  catholicity.  Setting 
out  from  W estern  Christendom,  we  naturally  go  back  to 
the  great  convulsion  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  we  per¬ 
ceive  the  still  huge  framework  of  the  Latin  Church, 
with  the  Popedom  at  its  head,  standing  erect  upon  a 
wide  field  of  battle,  in  the  midst  of  other  separated 
masses,  each  of  them  greatly  smaller  when  reckoned  one 
by  one,  but  in  the  aggregate  forming  a  total  very  large, 
even  if  we  confine  our  views  to  Europe.  The  three 
principal  of  these  severed  masses  are  the  Lutheran,  the 
Calvinistic,  and  the  Anglican,  which  at  the  present  time 
may  reach  sixty  or  eighty  millions  in  this  quarter  of  the 
globe.  Conjoined  with  them  are  a  number  of  Christian 
bodies,  which  derive  force  and  significance  partly  from 
magnitude,  and  partly  from  the  historic  incidents  of 
their  formation  ;  or  from  moral,  spiritual,  or  theological 
particularities,  whether  in  government,  discipline,  creed, 
or  in  the  spirit  of  their  policy  and  proceedings.  Almost 
all  of  them  are  very  strongly  anti-Roman,  and  there  are 
probably  still  many  religionists  among  them,  who  regard 
the  Roman  scheme,  incorporated  in  the  person  of  the 
Pope,  as  the  man  of  sin,  the  anti-Christ,  sitting  in  the 
temple  of  God,  and  boasting  or  showing  himself  that  he 
is  God.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  livelier  scene  of 
diversity  and  antagonism. 

When  we  pass  beyond  the  ocean  we  find  large  addi¬ 
tions  to  all  these  Western  Communions,  especially  to 
those  which  bear  the  name  of  Protestant.  So  that 
Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  Independents  or  Con- 
gregationalists,  are  able  to  boast  of  an  aggregate 
following,  which  amounts  apparently  in  each  case 
to  a  respectable  number  of  millions,  while  the  smaller 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


307 


segments  of  the  body  continue  to  be  almost  everywhere 
represented. 

But  Western  religion  has  had  this  among  its  other 
particularities,  that  it  maintains  a  wonderful  uncon¬ 
sciousness  of  the  existence  of  an  East.  But  there  is  an 
Eastern  Christianity,  and  this  too  is  divided  among  no 
small  number  of  communions,  of  which  by  far  the  most 
numerous  are  aggregated  round  the  ancient  See  of  New 
Rome,  or  Constantinople.  And  here  again  we  find  a 
knot  of  Churches,  which  are  termed  heretical  on  account 
of  difficulties  growing  out  of  the  older  controversies  of 
the  Church.  It  seems  fair,  however,  to  remark  that 
these  Churches  have  not  exhibited  the  changeable  and 
short-lived  character  which  is  supposed  to  be  among  the 
most  marked  notes  of  heresy.  They  have  subsisted 
through  some  fifteen  hundred  years  with  a  signal  per¬ 
sistency,  I  believe,  in  doctrine,  government,  and  usage. 
The  Eastern  Christians  do  not  probably  fall  short  of 
ninety  or  a  hundred  million  persons  all  told ;  and 
although  to  the  Western  eye  they  present  so  many 
exterior  resemblances  to  the  Roman  Church,  they  are  in 
practice  divided  from  it  not  less  sharply  than  the  Pro¬ 
testants,  by  differences  partly  of  doctrine  (where  their 
position  seems  very  strong),  but  still  more  of  organisa¬ 
tion  and  of  spirit. 

That  all  these  Churches  and  communions,  Latin, 
Eastern,  or  Reformed,  bear  a  conflicting  witness  con¬ 
cerning  Christianity  on  a  multitude  of  points,  is  a  fact 
too  plain  to  require  exposition  or  discussion.  Is  there, 
however,  anything  also  on  which  they  generally  agree  ? 
And  what  is  the  relation  between  that  on  which  they 
agree,  and  those  things  on  which  they  differ  h  At  this 
point,  it  is  manifest  that  we  touch  upon  matters  of 


308 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


great  interest  and  importance  ;  which,  however,  it  will 
suffice  to  mention  very  briefly.  The  tenets  upon  which 
these  dissonant  and  conflicting  bodies  are  agreed,  are 
the  great  central  tenets  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  of  the 
Incarnation  of  our  Lord.  But  these  constitute  the  very 
kernel  of  the  whole  Gospel.  Everything  besides,  that 
clusters  round  them,  including  the  doctrines  respecting 
the  Church,  the  Ministry,  the  Sacraments,  the  Com¬ 
munion  of  Saints,  and  the  great  facts  of  eschatology,  is 
only  developments  which  have  been  embodied  in  the 
historic  Christianity  of  the  past,  as  auxiliary  to  the 
great  central  purpose  of  Redemption ;  that  original 
promise  which  was  vouchsafed  to  sinful  man  at  the  out¬ 
set  of  his  sad  experience,  and  which  was  duly  accom¬ 
plished  when  the  fulness  of  time  had  come. 

If,  then,  the  Christian  Church  has  sustained  heavv 
loss  through  its  divisions  in  the  weight  of  its  testi¬ 
monials,  and  in  its  aggressive  powers  as  against  the 
world,  I  would  still  ask  whether  she  may  not,  in  the 
good  providence  of  God,  have  received  a  suitable,  per¬ 
haps  a  preponderating,  compensation,  in  the  accordant 
witness  of  all  Christendom,  to  the  truths  that  our 
religion  is  the  religion  of  the  God-Man,  and  that  J esus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh? 

It  will  have  appeared,  I  hope,  sufficiently  from  the 
foregoing  pages,  that  what  they  contemplate  and  seek 
to  recommend  is  a  readjustment  of  ideas,  and  not  a  sur¬ 
render,  in  any  quarter,  of  considered  and  conscientious 
convictions,  or  of  established  laws  and  practices. 

The  Christian  Church,  no  longer  entitled  to  speak 
with  an  undivided  and  universal  authority,  and  thus  to 
take  her  place  among  the  paramount  facts  of  life,  is  not 
thereby  invaded  in  her  inner  citadel.  That  citadel  is, 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM, 


309 


and  ever  was,  the  private  conscience  within  this  sacred 
precinct,  that  matured  the  forces  which  by  a  long  in¬ 
cubation  grew  to  such  a  volume  of  strength,  as  legiti¬ 
mately  to  obtain  the  mastery  of  the  world.  It  would 
be  a  fatal  error  to  allow  the  voice  of  that  conscience  to 
be  put  down  by  another  voice,  which  proceeds,  not  from 
within,  but  from  without,  the  sanctuary.  The  private 
conscience  is  indeed  for  man,  as  Cardinal  Newman  has 
well  said,  the  vicegerent  of  God. 

It  is  part  of  the  office  with  which  the  private  con¬ 
science  is  charged,  to  measure  carefully  its  powers  of 
harmonious  co-operation  with  Christians  of  all  sorts. 
This  duty  should  be  performed  in  the  manner,  and  on 
the  basis,  so  admirably  described  by  Dante  : — 

“  Le  frondi,  onde  s’  infronda  tutto  1’  orto 
Dell’  Ortolano  eterno,  am’  io  cotanto 
Quanto  da  lui  a  lor  di  bene  e  porto.”  * 

It  will  be  governed  by  large  regard  to  the  principle  of 
Love,  and  by  a  supreme  regard  to  the  prerogatives  of 
Truth,  and  the  very  same  feelings  which  will  lead  a 
sound  mind  to  welcome  a  solid  union,  will  also  lead  it  to 
eschew  an  immature  and  hollow  one. 

And  why,  it  will  be  further  asked,  is  this  readjust¬ 
ment  of  ideas  to  be  the  work  of  the  present  juncture1? 
In  answer,  I  request  that  we  should  study  to  discern 
the  signs  of  the  times.  Is  creation  groaning  and  tra¬ 
vailing  together  for  a  great  recovery,  or  is  it  not  ?  Are 
the  persons  adverse  to  that  recovery,  banded  together 
with  an  enhanced  and  overweening  confidence  ?  They 
loudly  boast  of  their  improved  means  of  action  :  and  are 
fond  especially  of  relying  on  the  increase  of  knowledge. 


*  (  Paradiso,’  Canto  xxvi,  64. 


310 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


Knowledge,  forsooth  !  God  prosper  it.  But  knowledge 
is  like  liberty ;  great  offences  are  committed  in  her 
name,  and  great  errors  covered  with  her  mantle.  The 
increase  of  knowledge  can  only  lead  us  to  an  increased 
acquaintance  with  Him  Who  is  its  source  and  spring. 
Let  the  champions  of  religion  now  know  and  under¬ 
stand,  that  it  is  more  than  ever  their  duty  to  equip 
themselves  with  knowledge,  and  to  use  it  as  an  effective 
weapon,  such  as  it  has  proved,  and  is  proving  itself  to 
be,  in  regard  to  the  ancient  history  of  our  planet  and  of 
man.  The  obstinacy  of  the  attack  is  probably  due  in 
the  main  to  the  increased  power  of  worldliness  under 
the  conditions  of  the  present  time ;  and  this,  in  its 
turn,  naturally  springs  from  the  extension  of  wealth, 
the  multiplication  of  luxuries,  the  increase  of  wants 
following  therefrom  :  of  wants,  every  one  of  which  is  as 
one  of  the  threads  which  would,  separately,  break,  but 
which  in  their  aggregate,  bound  Gulliver  to  the  earth. 
This  is  the  subtle  process  which  more  and  more,  from 
day  to  day,  is  weighting  the  scale  charged  with  the 
things  seen,  as  against  the  scale  whose  ethereal  burden 
lies  in  the  things  unseen.  And  while  the  adverse  host 
is  thus  continually  in  receipt  of  new  reinforcements,  it 
is  time  for  those  who  believe  to  bestir  themselves  :  and 
to  prepare  for  all  eventual  issues  by  well  examining 
their  common  interests,  and  by  keeping  firm  hold  upon 
that  chain  which  we  are  permitted  to  grasp  at  its  earth¬ 
ward  extremity,  while  at  its  other  end  it  lies  “  about 
the  feet  of  God.” 


HERESY  AND  SCHISM. 


311 


POSTSCRIPT. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

Hawarden  Castle,  Chester  : 
September  19,  1894. 

Sir, — I  should  be  glad  if  you  will  kindly  allow  me  to  supply  an 
omission  in  my  recent  paper  on  the  position  of  Heresy  and  Schism 
in  the  modern  Christian  Church. 

I  have  there  laid  stress  on  the  great  evidential  as  well  as  moral 
value  which  I  attach  to  the  concurrence  of  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  Christians  in  the  acceptance  of  certain  doctrines,  which 
they  regard  as  vital  and  central.  But  I  had  no  intention  of  there¬ 
by  conveying  any  precipitate  or  harsh  assumption  with  regard  to 
the  section  unable  to  accept  them.  I  am  not  about  to  enter  on 
this  large  subject,  but  I  own  with  pleasure  that  results  (as  we 
think  tthem)  of  true  doctrine  are  often  exhibited  on  a  scale  far 
exceeding  that  of  its  profession. 

I  have  the  honour  to  remain,  sir, 

Your  most  faithful  servant, 

W.  E.  Gladstone. 


X. 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  CONCEPTIONS  OF 
THE  ATONEMENT.* 

1894.| 

Prefatory. 

This  volume  presents  to  us  an  object  of  considerable 
interest.  It  inspires  sympathy  with  the  writer,  not 
only  as  a  person  highly  gifted,  but  as  a  seeker  after 
truth,  although  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  at  a  particular 
point  of  the  narrative  the  discussion  borders  on  the 
loathsome.  Indeed,  it  becomes  hard  to  conceive  by 
what  mental  process  Mrs.  Besant  can  have  convinced 
herself,  that  it  was  part  of  her  mission  as  a  woman  to 
open  such  a  subject  as  that  of  the  Ninth  Chapter,  in 
the  face  of  the  world,  and  in  a  book  meant  for  popular 
perusal.  Instruction  will  be  derived  from  the  work  at 
large  ;  but  probably  not  exactly  the  instruction  intended 
by  the  authoress.  Her  readers  will  find  that  they  are 
expected  to  feel  a  lively  interest  in  her  personality  :  and, 
in  order  that  this  interest  may  not  be  disappointed, 
they  will  find  her  presented  to  their  view  in  no  less 

*  Reprinted  from  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

f  ‘Annie  Besant:  an  Autobiography’  (London:  T.  Fisher  Unwin, 
1894). 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


313 


than  three  portraitures,  at  different  portions  of  the 
volume.  They  will  also  find,  that  the  book  is  a  spiritual 
itinerary,  and  that  it  shows  with  how  much  at  least  of 
intellectual  ease,  and  what  unquestioning  assumptions 
of  being  right,  vast  spaces  of  mental  travelling  may  be 
performed.  The  stages  are,  indeed,  glaringly  in  contrast 
with  one  another ;  yet  their  violent  contrarieties  do  not 
seem  at  any  period  to  suggest  to  the  writer  so  much  as 
a  doubt  whether  the  mind,  which  so  continually  changes 
in  attitude  and  colour,  can  after  all  be  very  trustworthy 
in  each  and  all  its  movements.  This  uncomfortable  sug¬ 
gestion  is  never  permitted  to  intrude ;  and  the  absolute 
self-complacency  of  the  authoress  bears  her  on  through 
tracts  of  air  buoyant  and  copious  enough  to  carry  the 
Dircsean  swan.  Mrs.  Besant  passes  from  her  earliest  to 
her  latest  stage  of  thought  as  lightly,  as  the  swallow 
skims  the  surface  of  the  lawn,  and  with  just  as  little 
effort  to  ascertain  what  lies  beneath  it.  An  ordinary 
mind  would  suppose  that  modesty  was  the  one  lesson 
which  she  could  not  have  failed  to  learn  from  her  extra¬ 
ordinary  permutations ;  but  the  chemist,  who  shall 
analyse  by  percentages  the  contents  of  these  pages,  will 
not,  I  apprehend,  be  in  a  condition  to  report  that  of 
such  an  element  he  can  find  even  the  infinitesimal 
quantity  usually  and  conveniently  denominated  a  “trace.” 
Her  several  schemes  of  belief,  or  non-belief,  appear  to 
have  been  entertained  one  after  another,  with  the  same 
undoubting  confidence,  until  the  junctures  successively 
arrived  for  their  not  regretful,  but  rather  contemptuous, 
rejection.  They  are  nowhere  based  upon  reasoning,  but 
they  rest  upon  one  and  the  same  authority — the  authority 
of  Mrs.  Besant.  In  the  general  absence  of  argument  to 
explain  the  causes  of  her  movements,  she  apparently 


314 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


thinks  it  sufficient  to  supply  us  with  her  three  portraits, 
as  carrying  with  them  sufficient  attestation.  If  we  ask 
upon  which  of  her  religions,  or  substitutes  for  religion, 
we  are  to  place  reliance,  the  reply  would  undoubtedly 
be,  upon  the  last.  Yes ;  but  who  is  to  assure  us  that  it 
will  be  the  last  ?  It  remains  open  to  us  to  hope,  for  her 
own  sake,  that  she  may  yet  describe  the  complete  circle, 
and  end  somewhere  near  the  point  where  she  began. 

Religion  had  a  large  share  in  the  interests  of  Mrs. 
Besant’s  early  childhood ;  and  at  eight  years  J  old  she 
received  a  strongly  Evangelical  bent.  She  is  sensible 
of  having  been  much  governed  by  vanity  at  this  period 
of  her  life,  while  she  does  not  inform  us  whether  this 
quality  spontaneously  disappeared,  or  what  had  become 
of  it  in  the  later  stages.  It  can  hardly  be  made  matter 
of  reproach  to  Mrs.  Besant  that  such  early  years  did  not 
supply  her  with  her  final  standing-ground  ;  or  that,  like 
most  of  the  other  highly  gifted  pupils  in  the  school 
popularly  known  as  Evangelical,  she  felt  herself  irre¬ 
sistibly  impelled  to  an  onward  movement.  She  came  to 
rejoice,  as  so  many  more  have  done,  in  the  great  concep¬ 
tion  of  a  Catholic  Church  lasting  through  the  centuries  ;  t 
“  the  hidden  life  grew  stronger,”  and  the  practice  of 
weekly  communion,  nay,  even  that  of  self-chastisement, 
was  adopted.  In  retrospect,  she  perceives  that  the  key¬ 
note  of  her  life  has  been  a  “  longing  for  sacrifice  to 
something  felt  as  greater  than  the  self.”  J  When  she 
married,  at  the  age  of  twenty,  she  “had  no  more  idea 
of  the  marriage  relation  than  if  she  had  been  four  years 
old.”  The  supremacy  of  the  new  form  given  to  her 
religious  ideas  is  not  very  well  defined,  nor  is  there  any 


*  Page  45. 


f  Page  56. 


X  Page  57. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


315 


intelligible  account  of  the  process  through  which  it  was 
summarily  put  upon  its  trial.  She  informs  us,  indeed, 
that  she  went  up  to  the  sources,  and  made  herself 
acquainted  with  the  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  were  her  oppor¬ 
tunities,  or  what  was  the  extent  of  the  girl’s  patristic 
reading.  *  Suffice  it  to  say  that  it  has  not  left  the 
smallest  trace  upon  the  matter  or  spirit  of  this  volume. 
And,  indeed,  that  a  reader  of  the  early  Fathers  should 
present  to  us,  as  agreeable  to  the  teaching  “of  the 
Churches,”  that  utterly  modern  caricature  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  which  will  presently  be  cited, 
is  a  solecism  which,  along  with  a  multitude  of  other 
solecisms,  we  must  leave  it  to  her  readers  to  examine. 
As  for  Mrs.  Besant  she  is  frankly  astonished  at  the 
amount  of  her  own  religiosity,  and  she  accepts  with 
apparent  acquiescence  the  remark  of  her  dying  father, f 
that  “  darling  Annie’s  only  fault  was  being  too  religious.” 
In  all  her  different  phases  of  thought,  that  place  in  the 
mind  where  the  sense  of  sin  should  be,  appears  to  have 
remained,  all  through  the  shifting  scenes  of  her  mental 
history,  an  absolute  blank.  Without  this  sense,  it  is 
obvious  that  her  Evangelicalism  and  her  High  Churchism 
were  alike  built  upon  the  sand,  and  that  in  strictness 
she  never  quitted  what  she  had  never  in  its  integrity 
possessed.  Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  held  that  she 
has  followed  at  all  times  her  own  impulsions  with  an 
entire  sincerity ;  but  that  those  impulsions  have  been 
wofully  dislocated  in  origin,  spirit,  and  direction,  by  an 
amount  of  egregious  self-confidence  which  is  in  itself  a 
guarantee  of  failure  in  mental  investigations. 


*  Page  56. 


f  Page  24. 


316 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


After  a  physical  crisis,  brought  about  by  the  sufferings 
of  a  child  in  illness,  her  religion  received  a  shock  which 
it  had  not  strength  to  survive.  She  resolved  carefully 
and  thoroughly  to  examine  its  dogmas  one  by  one ;  * 
and  she  addressed  herself,  by  a  process  which  she  does 
not  describe,  to  four  propositions,  which,  as  she  states,  are 
assailed  by  “  the  steadily  advancing  waves  of  historical 
and  scientific  criticism.”  The  propositions  are  :  f 

1.  The  eternity  of  punishment  after  death. 

2.  The  meaning  of  goodness  and  love,  as  applied  to  a  God  who 
had  made  this  world  with  all  its  sin  and  misery. 

3.  The  nature  of  the  Atonement  of  Christ ,  and  the  justice  of  God 
in  accepting  a  vicarious  suffering  from  Christ ,  and  a  vicarious 
righteousness  from  the  sinner. 

4.  The  meaning  of  inspiration  as  applied  to  the  Bible,  and  the 
reconciliation  of  the  perfections  of  the  Author  with  the  blunders 
and  immoralities  of  the  work. 

These  propositions  were  rejected  by  the  young  lady  not 
long  out  of  her  teens.  But  lest  we  should  resent  her 
reticence  as  to  the  method  in  which  she  fulfilled  her 
plan  of  systematic  examination,  she  gives  us  this 
assurance :  “  Looking  back  I  cannot  but  see  how  orderly 
was  the  progression  of  thought,  how  steady  the  growth, 
after  that  first  terrible  earthquake.”  £ 

Still,  beyond  this  authoritative  notice,  we  have  not 
the  smallest  tittle  of  evidence  to  show  either,  first,  that 
any  of  the  propositions  were  ever  subjected  to  any 
serious  examination  at  all,  or  even,  secondly,  that  any 
pains  were  taken  to  verify  them  as  propositions  really 
incorporated  in  that  teaching  of  “the  Churches”  with 
which  she  was  resolved  to  deal.  It  is  hardly  needful  to 
observe  that,  to  allege  such  incorporation,  with  respect 


*  Page  99. 


f  Ibid.’ 


t  Ibid. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


01  w 
Ol  i 

to  an  essential  part  of  the  third  proposition,  is  to  exhibit 
what,  in  a  case  where  insincerity  is  not  for  a  moment 
to  be  imputed,  can  only  be  described  as  rash  and  blame¬ 
worthy  ignorance. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  authoress  into  her 
further  experiences  as  (in  her  own  language)  an  atheist 
and  a  theosophist.  The  point  at  which  she  parts  com¬ 
pany  from  Christianity  is  the  point  for  taking  up  her 
challenge.  Accordingly,  the  purpose  of  these  pages 
is  to  test  at  least  one  of  her  four  propositions,  that 
which  relates  to  the  doctrine  of  Atonement.  But  as  I 
am  conscious  of  no  title  to  set  off  an  ipse  dixit  against 
the  ipsa  dixit  of  Mrs.  Besant,  the  task  set  before  me 
can  only  be  performed  by  a  patient  examination  of 
language,  and  of  reasoning,  which  supply  the  sole  means 
ordinarily  vouchsafed  to  man  as  his  aids  in  the  search 
for  truth.  In  speaking  thus,  I  waive  no  tittle  of  the 
authority  which  belongs  to  the  established  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement ;  but  only  abstain  from  modes  of  speech 
and  argument,  which  could  find  no  possible  access  to  the 
minds  of  such  as  follow  the  methods  adopted  by  the 
writer  of  this  autobiography. 

The  Atonement  of  Christ. 

This  inquirer,  or  rather,  this  objector,  asks  what  is 
the  “  justice  ”  of  God  in  “  accepting  a  vicarious  suffering 
from  Christ,  and  a  vicarious  righteousness  from  the 
sinner  ”  ? 

The  acceptance  of  a  vicarious  righteousness  from  the 
sinner  may  be  put  aside  for  the  present ;  inasmuch  as, 
if  the  first  part  of  the  case  can  be  met,  the  second, 
which  is  an  ulterior,  and  perhaps  in  various  ways  a 

*  Mrs.  Besant,  ‘Autobiography,’  p.  99. 


318 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


questionable,  development,  at  least  as  it  is  often  put, 
never  will  arise. 

It  is  well  to  get  rid  of  verbal  controversies.  In 
human  affairs,  when  an  intermediate  person  comes 
between  a  creditor  and  his  debtor,  and  guarantees  or 
advances  the  money,  the  creditor  may  be  said  to  accept 
a  vicarious  liquidation  of  the  debt.  And  yet  that 
intermediate  person  may  have  the  fullest  intention  of 
requiring  the  debtor  to  take  the  obligation  upon  himself, 
and  the  fullest  knowledge  that  this  will  be  done. 
Accordingly,  let  this  topic  stand  aside,  for  it  is  virtually 
included  in  the  larger  question. 

It  is,  then,  obviously  intended  to  suggest  that  God 
accepts  from  Christ  the  suffering  which,  but  for  Christ, 
would  have  been  justly  due  to  the  sinner,  and  justly 
inflicted  upon  him ;  and  that,  Christ  being  absolutely 
innocent,  injustice  towards  Him  is  here  involved. 

At  the  outset,  I  have  to  say  that  statements  are 
sometimes  made  by  unwise  or  uninstructed  persons — 
indeed,  I  have  myself  heard  such  statements  from  the 
pulpit — which  give,  or  appear  to  give,  countenance  to 
this  charge.  A  preacher,  whom  I  am  reluctant  to  name, 
declared  in  my  hearing  that,  when  pardon  has  been 
obtained  under  the  Gospel,  a  debt  is  paid  off,  and  God 
gives  “a  receipt  in  full.”  The  thing  necessary  is,  that 
there  should  be  a  payment.  What  does  it  matter  to 
the  creditor  by  whom  the  debt  is  paid  ?  Shylock,  more 
astute  than  other  creditors,  though  even  he  was  incom¬ 
pletely  astute,  yet  provided  effectually  against  this  con¬ 
tingency.  The  debt  of  Antonio  was  to  be  paid  with  a 
part  of  his  own  body,  and  admitted  of  no  substitution. 
An  act  of  sin  is,  from  this  point  of  view,  what  is  called 
an  I  O  U  ;  and  it  is  nothing  more.  The  receipt  in  full 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


319 


having  been  given,  the  transaction,  or  course  of  trans¬ 
actions,  is  at  an  end.  This  incautious  preacher  stated 
a  part,  and  that  not  the  most  inward  or  ethical  part,  as 
if  it  had  been  the  whole  ;  and,  according  to  his  exposition, 
the  Almighty,  who  was  the  creditor,  had  no  more  to  do 
with  the  affair ;  while  the  character  of  the  required 
penalty,  which  fell  upon  the  Saviour,  is  so  stated  as  if 
good  had  been  undeservedly  obtained  for  the  sinner,  by 
the  infliction  of  evil  undeservedly  upon  the  righteous. 

It  is,  of  course,  no  answer  to  this  to  say  that  the 
obligation  to  discharge  the  debt  was  willingly  accepted 
by  our  Lord.  For,  firstly,  we  must,  I  think,  understand 
from  the  Agony  in  the  Garden  that  His  willingness  was 
a  conditioned  willingness.  He  would  not  ask  for  the 
twelve  legions  of  angels ;  *  but  He  prayed  that  the  cup 
might  pass  from  Him  if  His  drinking,  draining,  it  could 
be  dispensed  with ;  He  accepted  it  because  there  was 
something  deep  down  in  the  counsels,  and  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  Divine  Being,  which  made  it  indispensable. 
Secondly,  if  it  was  unjust  that  He  should  pay  by  suffer¬ 
ing,  His  willingness  in  no  way  clears  the  character  of 
the  Almighty  as  the  universal  Governor  of  the  world. 
Injustice  is  not  the  less  injustice  because  there  may  be 
a  willing  submission  to  it. 

But,  in  fact,  our  objector  seems  to  agree  with  our 
disowned  defender  in  this  ;  that  both  look  at  the  forensic 
or  reputed,  and  neither  at  the  ethical,  which  is  of  neces¬ 
sity  the  essential,  aspect  of  the  case.  Let  it  be  granted 
to  them  both — - 

1.  That  the  “  sinner,”  that  is  to  say,  man,  taken 
generally,  is  liable  to  penalty,  for  sin  ingrained  and  sin 
committed. 


*  Matt.  xxvi.  39,  42,  53. 


320 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


2.  That  the  Son  of  God,  liable  to  no  penalty,  submits 
Himself  to  a  destiny  of  suffering  and  shame. 

3.  That  by  His  life  and  death  of  suffering  and  shame 
men  are  relievable,  and  have,  upon  acceptance  of  the 
Gospel  and  continuance  therein,  been  actually  relieved, 
from  the  penalties  to  which  they  were  liable. 

4.  That  as  sin  entails  suffering,  and  as  Another  has 
enabled  the  sinner  to  put  all  penal  suffering  away,  and, 
in  effecting  this,  and  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  it,  has 
Himself  suffered,  this  surely  is  in  the  full  sense  of  the 
term  a  vicarious  suffering,  an  atonement,  at-one-ment, 
vicariously  brought  about  by  the  intervention  of  an 
innocent  person. 

This  dispensation  of  Atonement  is  part  and  parcel  of 
the  Incarnation ;  and  the  Incarnation,  undertaken  in 
order  to  suffer,  by  the  Man  of  Sorrows  acquainted  with 
grief,  is  mystery  but  is  not  injustice ;  does  not  involve 
the  idea  of  injustice,  and  is  not  liable  to  the  charge. 
Such  is  the  contention  which  it  will  now  be  endeavoured 
to  make  good. 

Be  it  remembered  that  pain,  though  it  is  not  lawfully 
to  be  inflicted  except  for  wrong  done,  is  not  in  itself 
essentially  evil.  It  has  been  freely  borne,  again  and 
again,  by  good  men  for  the  sake  of  bad  men ;  and  they 
have  borne  it  sometimes  with  benefit  to  the  bad  men, 
always  with  benefit  to  themselves.  Pain  indicates,  it 
may  be,  a  relation  to  evil ;  but  is  so  far  from  being 
absolutely  an  evil,  that  it  may  be  relatively  and  con¬ 
ditionally  a  good,  as  being  the  instrumental  cause  of 
good. 

If  we  are  told  in  reply  that  Christ,  being  God  and 
therefore  perfect,  could  receive  no  good  from  pain,  the 
answer  is  that  by  the  Incarnation  Christ  took  upon 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


321 


Him  a  nature  not  strictly  perfect  but  perfectible,  for 
He  “grew  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favour  with 
God  and  man.75 

I  have  here  gone  through  some  propositions  which 
may  be  termed  forensic.  It  may  be  convenient,  before 
proceeding  farther,  to  advert  to  the  meaning  of  this 
term,  which  was  brought,  I  apprehend,  into  familiar  use, 
about  half  a  century  ago,  by  the  remarkable  writings  of 
Mr.  Alexander  Knox.  It  properly  refers  to  proceedings 
of  condemnation  or  acquittal,  such  as  take  place  in 
earthly  courts  of  justice,  and  accordingly  express  not 
certain  truth,  but  only  our  imperfect  effort  to  arrive  at 
it.  They  are  therefore  necessarily  disjoined  from  ethical 
conditions,  in  so  far  that  they  have  no  fixed  relation  to 
them. 

With  so  much  of  explanation,  let  us  now  turn  to 
those  considerations  which  are  properly  ethical.  And  1 
would  strongly  contend  that  there  is  in  Scripture,  in 
Christianity,  nothing  forensic,  which  is  not  also  ethical ; 
that  these  are  two  distinct  but  not  clashing  forms  of 
expressing  the  one  and  the  same  thing ;  one  of  them,  it 
may  be  said,  expressing  it  as  law,  the  other  as  command  ; 
one  as  justice,  the  other  as  will.  I  would  indeed  submit 
that,  if  we  believe  in  God  at  all,  it  becomes  impossible 
for  us  to  sever  these  two  ideas  from  one  another. 

The  following  propositions  as  they  stand  of  course 
cannot  pretend  to  the  smallest  authority ;  but  they  are 
meant  to  be,  and  I  hope  may  be,  conformable  to  the  estab¬ 
lished  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  the  Church  at  large  : 

1 .  We  are  born  into  the  world  in  a  condition  in  which 
our  nature  has  been  depressed  or  distorted  or  impaired 


i. 


*  Luke  ii.  52. 


Y 


322 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


by  sin ;  and  we  partake  by  inheritance  this  ingrained 
fault  of  our  race.  This  fault  is  in  Scripture  referred  to 
a  person  and  a  period,  which  gives  definiteness  to  the 
conception ;  but  we  are  not  here  specially  concerned 
with  the  form  in  which  the  doctrine  has  been  declared. 

2.  This  fault  of  nature  has  not  abolished  freedom  of 
the  will,  but  it  has  caused  a  bias  towards  the  wrong. 

3.  The  laws  of  our  nature  make  its  excellence  recover¬ 
able  by  Divine  discipline  and  self-denial,  if  the  will  be 
duly  directed  to  the  proper  use  of  these  instruments  of 
recovery. 

4.  A  Redeemer,  whose  coming  was  prophesied  simul¬ 
taneously  with  the  fall,  being  a  person  no  less  than  the 
Eternal  Son  of  God,  comes  into  the  world,  and  at  the 
cost  of  great  suffering  establishes  in  His  own  person  a 
type,  a  matrix  so  to  speak,  for  humanity  raised  to  its 
absolute  perfection. 

5.  He  also  promulgates  a  creed  or  scheme  of  highly 
influential  truths,  and  founds  therewith  a  system  of 
institutions  and  means  of  grace,  whereby  men  may  be 
recast,  as  it  were,  in  that  matrix  or  mould  which  He 
has  provided,  and  united  one  by  one  with  His  own 
perfect  humanity.  Under  the  exercising  forces  of  life, 
their  destiny  is  to  grow  more  and  more  into  His  likeness. 
He  works  in  us  and  by  us  ;  not  figuratively,  but  literally. 
Christ,  if  we  answer  to  His  grace,  is,  as  St.  Paul  said, 
formed  in  us.  By  a  discipline  of  life  based  on  the  con¬ 
stitutive  principles  of  our  being,  He  brings  us  nearer  to 
Himself ;  that  which  we  have  first  learned  as  lesson 
distils  itself  into  habit  and  character ;  it  becomes  part 
of  our  composition,  and  gradually,  through  Christ,  ever 
neutralising  and  reversing  our  evil  bias,  renews  our 
nature  in  His  own  image. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


323 


6.  We  have  here  laid  down  for  us,  as  it  would  seem, 
the  essentials  of  a  moral  redemption  ;  of  relief  from  evil 
as  well  as  pain.  Man  is  brought  back  from  sin  to 
righteousness  by  a  holy  training ;  that  training  is  sup¬ 
plied  by  incorporation  into  the  Christ  who  is  God  and 
man ;  and  that  Christ  has  been  constituted,  trained, 
and  appointed  to  His  office  in  this  incorporation,  through 
suffering.  His  suffering,  without  any  merit  of  ours,  and 
in  spite  of  our  guilt,  is  thus  the  means  of  our  recovery 
and  sanctification.  And  His  suffering  is  truly  vicarious  ; 
for  if  He  had  not  thus  suffered  on  our  behalf,  we  must 
have  suffered  in  our  own  helpless  guilt. 

7.  This  appears  to  be  a  system  purely  and  absolutely 
ethical  in  its  basis  ;  such  vicarious  suffering,  thus  viewed, 
implies  no  disparagement,  even  in  the  smallest  particulars, 
to  the  justice  and  righteousness  of  God. 

8.  It  is  not  by  any  innovation,  so  to  speak,  in  His 
scheme  of  government,  that  the  Almighty  brings  about 
this  great  and  glorious  result.  What  is  here  enacted  on 
a  gigantic  scale  in  the  kingdom  of  grace,  only  repeats  a 
phenomenon  with  which  we  are  perfectly  familiar  in  the 
natural  and  social  order  of  the  world,  where  the  good, 
at  the  expense  of  pain  endured  by  them,  procure  benefits 
for  the  unworthy.  It  may  indeed  be  said,  and  with 
truth,  that  the  good  men  of  whom  we  speak  are  but 
partially  good,  whereas  the  Lord  Christ  is  absolutely 
good.  True ;  yet  the  analogy  is  just,  and  it  holds,  even 
if  we  state  no  more  than  that  the  better  suffer  for  the 
worse.  The  Christian  Atonement  is,  indeed,  transcendent 
in  character,  and  cannot  receive  from  ordinary  sources 
any  entirely  adequate  illustration,  but  yet  the  essence 
and  root  of  this  matter  lies  in  the  idea  of  good  vicariously 
conveyed.  And  this  is  an  operation  appertaining  to  the 


324 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


whole  order  of  human  things,  so  that,  besides  being 
agreeable  to  justice  and  to  love,  it  is  also  sustained  by 
analogies  lying  outside  the  Christian  system,  and  indeed 
the  whole  order  of  revelation. 

9.  The  pretexts  for  impugning  the  Divine  character 
in  connection  with  the  redemption  of  man  are  artificially 
constructed  by  detaching  the  vicarious  efficacy  of  the 
sufferings  of  our  Lord  from  moral  consequences,  wrought 
out  in  those  who  obtain  the  application  of  His  redeeming 
power  by  incorporation  into  His  Church  or  Body.  Take 
away  this  unnatural  severance,  and  the  objections  fall 
to  the  ground. 

10.  And  now  we  come  to  the  place  of  what  is  termed 
pardon  in  the  Christian  system.  The  word  justification, 
which  in  itself  means  making;  righteous,  has  been  em- 
ployed  in  Scripture  to  signify  the  state  of  acceptance 
into  which  we  are  introduced  by  the  pardon  of  our  sins. 
And  it  is  strongly  held  by  St.  Paul  that  we  are  justified 
by  faith, :f  not  by  works.  Were  we  justified,  admitted  to 
pardon,  by  our  works,  we  should  be  our  own  redeemers, 
not  the  redeemed  of  Christ.  But  there  are  further  and 
unwarranted  developments  of  these  ideas,  which  bring 
us  into  the  neighbourhood  of  danger. 

11.  I  have  said  that,  when  the  vicarious  sufferings  of 
Christ  are  so  regarded  that  we  can  appropriate  their 
virtue,  while  disjoining  them  even  for  a  moment  from 
moral  consequences  in  ourselves,  we  open  the  door  to 
imputations  on  the  righteousness  of  God.  But  the 
epoch  of  pardon  for  our  sins  marks  the  point  at  which 
that  appropriation  is  effected ;  and  if  pardon  be,  even 
for  a  moment,  severed  from  a  moral  process  of  renovation, 


*  Rom.  iii.  28,  V.  1. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


325 


if  these  two  are  not  made  to  stand  in  organic  and 
vital  connection  with  one  another,  that  door  is  opened 
through  which  mischief  will  rush  in.  And  thus  pardon 
may  be  made  to  hold  an  illegitimate  place  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  system ;  as  when  it  is  said  that  the  condition  and 
means  of  pardon  are  simply  to  believe  that  we  are 
pardoned  ;  the  doctrine  charged  with  extraordinary 
pertinacity  and  vigour  by  Bossuet  upon  Luther.  But 
in  Holy  Scripture  there  is  no  opening  of  such  a  door ; 
no  possibility  of  entrance  for  such  an  error. 

12.  Pardon,  on  the  other  hand,  has  both  a  legitimate 
and  a  most  important  place  in  the  Christian  scheme.. 
AVhat  is  that  place  ?  and  what  is  pardon  itself  ?  Is  it 
arbitrary,  and  disconnected  from  the  renewing  process  ? 
or  is  it,  on  the  other  hand,  based  upon  a  thorough 
accord  with  the  ethical  and  the  practical  ideas  which 
form  the  heart  of  the  scheme  ?  Is  it  like  an  amnesty 
proclaimed  by  some  human,  probably  some  revolutionary 
government  without  any  guarantee  or  condition  as  to 
the  motives  it  will  set  in  action ;  or  is  it  the  positive 
entry  of  the  strong  man  into  the  house  which  he  is  to 
cleanse  and  to  set  in  order,  while  he  accompanies  his 
entry  with  a  proclamation  of  peace  and  joy  founded 
upon  the  work  which  he  is  to  achieve  therein  ? 

I  suppose  we  do  not  travel  far  from  the  line  of 
accuracy  if  we  allege  that  pardon  is  what  in  the  Pauline 
sense  would  be  initial  justification.  Both  of  them  are 
terms  belonging  to  the  forensic  system.  That  epithet 
has  great  conveniences  from  the  simplicity  and  force  of 
the  antithesis  it  signifies.  I  have  pointed  out  that  it  is 
defective  in  point  of  precise  accuracy,  and  it  does  not 
express  the  whole  truth  of  the  case.  When  a  man  is 
declared  guilty  in  a  court  of  justice,  from  which  sphere 


326 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


the  phrase  is  borrowed,  the  meaning  is  definite  enough 
in  this,  that  the  man  was  to  suffer  a  penalty  definite  in 
its  nature,  but  implying  nothing  certain  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  he  has  actually  committed  the  fault  to 
which  it  is  annexed.  If,  conversely,  he  is  declared  to 
be  not  guilty,  again  the  meaning  is  not  that  he  is  cer¬ 
tainly  known  not  to  have  committed  the  fault,  but  that 
he  is  not  certainly  known  to  have  committed  it,  and 
that  upon  the  assumption  of  his  innocence  he  is  to  go 
scot  free.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  forensic 
phraseology,  and  the  responsibility  of  the  comparison 
which  some  preachers  have  so  vulgarised  by  treating  the 
transaction  as  one  across  the  counter,  does  not  appear 
to  belong  to  Holy  Scripture.  But  as  Holy  Scripture 
speaks  of  pardon,  and  of  that  state  of  condemnation  in 
which  our  sin  abideth,  and  from  which  we  are  delivered 
by  pardon,  there  is  here  a  real  resemblance  to  the  “guilty 
and  not  guilty  ”  of  the  court  of  justice  in  respect  of 
punishment  impending  or  not  impending.  But  there  is 
none  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  true  guilt  or  innocence 
which  marks  our  imperfect  efforts  to  establish  criminal 
retribution  ;  for  all  things  are  naked  to  the  eyes  of  Him 
with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

There  is  thus  a  limited  or  partial  accommodation  to 
the  forensic  idea,  when  use  is  made  in  theology  of  the 
word  pardon,  and  of  a  justification  which  primarily 
signifies  not  righteousness  but  acquittal.  Let  us 
attempt  to  illustrate  this  accommodating  use,  by  con¬ 
trasting  it  with  the  case  of  physical  disease  under 
remedial  treatment.  Here  the  physician  and  the 
patient  alike  have  to  look  only  to  the  ailment  and  the 
remedy,  operating  upon  one  another.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  an  imputed  cure.  What  the  remedy  gains,  the 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


327 


malady  loses  ;  and  vice  versa.  There  is  no  cure  except 
an  actual  cure  :  no  assurance  of  health  of  any  kind  until, 
and  just  in  so  far  as,  actual  health  is  recovered. 

The  case  is,  however,  different  when  we  consider  man 
as  labouring  under  moral  ailment,  and  as  receiving  the 
care  of  the  Great  Physician.  Here,  when  the  centre  of 
his  being  is  effectually  reached,  and  the  inmost  spring 
of  action,  which  had  wrought  for  evil,  now  turns  to 
goodness  and  to  God  as  its  source,  the  taint  of  former 
sin,  the  force  of  evil  bias,  is  not  at  once,  nor  perhaps  for 
a  long  and  weary  time,  effectually  removed.  The  man 
remains  sinful  except  in  his  intention  for  the  future. 
What  is  this  intention  required  to  be  in  order  to  bring 
it  within  the  saving  grace  of  the  Gospel  ?  Not  merely 
a  weak,  not  merely  even  a  strong,  remorse.  Not  a  mere 
velleity  of  good,  however  that  velleity  be  free  from  the 
taint  of  conscious  insincerity  at  the  moment.  No,  it 
must  be  the  sovereign  faculty  of  will  truly  (but  whether 
permanently  or  not  is  a  question  only  collateral  to  the 
present  inquiry)  turned  to  God,  and  actually  and 
supremely  operative  upon  the  workings  of  the  whole 
man  ;  for  if  there  be  a  reserve,  if  the  heart  will  not  part 
with  some  treasured  corruption,  if  like  the  young  man 
in  the  Gospel  it  will  not  separate  from  all  that  separates 
from  Christ,  the  remedial  process  is  intercepted,  the 
avenging  record  is  not  blotted  out,  there  is  no  pardon, 
no  justification,  no  capable  subject  upon  which  the 
blessing  can  descend. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  heart  is  right  with  God 
in  that  sense  which  so  many  pages  of  the  Scripture 
establish  and  define  for  us  by  living  instances,  then 
there  is  pardon ;  there  is  that  living  seed  of  actual 
righteousness,  which  has  only  to  grow,  under  the  laws 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


appointed  for  our  nature,  in  order  to  complete  the  work. 
Pardon  is  properly  a  thing  imputed.  But,  besides  what 
is  imputed,  something  is  imparted  to  the  sinner  :  but, 
in  the  first  place,  what  ?  and,  in  the  second  place,  why  ? 

There  is  imparted  to  him  relief  from  the  penal  inflic¬ 
tions  due  to  sin.  But  what  do  we  mean,  in  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  these  words  ?  W e  do  not  mean  that  he  is 
relieved  from  all  the  consequences  of  sin.  Many  of 
those  consequences  arrive  from  without,  and  an  opera¬ 
tion  takes  jfiace  in  the  way  of  cause  and  effect,  just  as 
independently  of  repentance,  as  if  one  has  received  a 
wound  in  a  guilty  foray,  where  sorrow  for  the  occurrence 
does  nothing  to  cure  the  hurt.  Neither  do  we  even 
mean  that  he  is  relieved  from  all  the  consequences  of 
sin,  except  such  as  are  external.  Bor  it  may  be  too 
sadly  true  that  the  soul,  like  the  souls  of  Guinevere  and 
Lancelot,  will  have  presented  to  it  in  the  future  the 
seductive  influences  of  many  a  sweet  temptation.  Let 
us  advance  one  step  further.  It  is  not  meant  that  the 
penitent  sinner  will  be  relieved  from  all  the  painful 
consequences  of  sin.  None  of  our  actions  end  with  the 
doing  of  them.  Their  consequences  will  ordinarily  come 
back  upon  the  doer  in  a  multitude  of  forms.  The  evil 
habits  will  assert  themselves,  which  the  converted 
will  and  heart  will  at  all  hazards  and  to  all  extremi¬ 
ties,  resist ;  and  here  it  seems  obvious  that  the  amount 
of  pain  and  bitterness  growing  up  out  of  the  old  trans¬ 
gressions  will  be  greater  and  more  intense  in  proportion 
to  the  earnestness,  courage,  and  simplicity  of  aim  with 
which  the  soul’s  battle  of  life  and  death  is  carried  on. 
What,  then,  is  that  vast  residue  of  the  consequences  of 
sin  from  which  the  pardoned  sinner  is  exempted  by 
receiving  his  pardon  ? 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


329 


The  answer  is,  I  suppose,  to  be  found  in  the  dis¬ 
tinction  justly  drawn  between  corrective  and  vindictive 
justice,  between  the  remedial  and  the  simply  penal  con¬ 
sequences  of  sin.  Those  results  of  sin  which  have  been 
enumerated  above — the  pain  and  shame  of  recollection, 
the  struggle  with  the  enemy — -are  in  the  nature  of  cor¬ 
rective  or  remedial  results.  They  are  not  opposed  to 
pardon,  they  are  not  restraints  upon  it.  They  are  co- 
operators  with  pardon  ;  auxiliaries  which  supply  their 
contribution  towards  the  accomplishment  of  the  proper 
work  of  pardon.  The  one  and  the  other  are  alike 
directed  to  and  qualified  for  the  abatement  of  spiritual 
disease.  All  these  consequences  of  sin,  and  all  the 
struggles  with  them,  if  bitter  in  their  first  inception, 
have  an  after-sweetness  which  effectually  soothes  and 
reconciles,  and  engenders  not  only  a  contentment  due 
to  resignation  and  submission,  but  a  kind  of  actual  joy 
in  salutary  pain  ;  supremely  described  by  the  genius, 
which  has  presented  to  us  the  ‘  Dream  of  Gerontius.’ 

Far  different  are  the  pains,  strictly  penal  as  to  the 
offender,  morally  exemplary  for  others,  which  attach 
themselves  to  sin  when  it  has  been  deliberately  and 
obstinately  cherished.  These  are  the  pains  due  to,  and 
seemingly  inseparable  from,  that  Divine  constitution  of 
the  universe  under  which  guilt  and  misery  are  bound 
one  to  another,  in  its  permanent  arrangements,  by  a 
chain  of  iron. 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  the  Atonement  of  Christ, 
so  far  from  involving  deviation  from  the  established 
laws  of  Divine  justice,  has  its  foundations  deeply  laid 
in  the  moral  order  of  the  world,  and  is  an  all-powerful 
instrument  for  the  promotion  of  righteousness.  It 
may  indeed  be  alleged  that  it  is  a  provision  obviously 


330 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


exceptional,  and  that  according  to  ordinary  laws  every 
individual  stands  or  falls  in  the  main  by  his  own  well  or 
ill  doing,  and  not  by  that  of  another.  Nor  can  this 
be  denied  ;  it  being  indeed  evident,  that  the  entire  case 
of  the  human  inhabitants  of  this  planet  has  been  made, 
in  most  important  respects,  exceptional,  through  the 
introduction  of  sin  into  the  world.  And  hence  it  may 
be  associated  with  the  discipline  or  condition  of  worlds 
other  than  our  own.  We  are  ordained  to  be  a  spec¬ 
tacle  for  men  and  angels."'  If  Apostles,  then  perhaps 
others,  according  to  their  degree,  may,  in  high  matters 
of  our  redemption,  says  St.  Peter,  see  things  which  u  the 
angels  desire  to  look  into.”  f  “  The  general  assembly 
and  church  of  the  firstborn  ”  J  is  named  apart  from  “  the 
spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,”  and  probably  includes 
more.  “Which  things,”  says  St.  Peter — namely,  the 
spiritual  things  of  the  terrene  dispensation,  ‘ c  the  angels 
desire  to  look  into.”  And  in  truth  the  whole  ministry  of 
angels,  whereof  the  notices  are  so  richly  spread  through 
the  Scriptures,  seems  to  imply  the  concern  of  the  sinless 
and  free  creatures  of  God  in  the  condition  of  those  im¬ 
mediately  touched  by  the  great  overshadowing  fact  of 
the  Incarnation.  Por,  on  the  one  hand,  it  would,  but 
for  this,  be  hard  to  see  why  the  sympathies  of  angels 
should  not  dwell  on  those  whose  condition  essentially 
corresponds  with  theirs  ;  and,  on  the  other,  it  is  difficult 
to  conceive  how  such  a  fact  as  the  Incarnation  can  be 
without  interest,  nay,  probably  even  (we  may  add)  with¬ 
out  consequences,  for  worlds  other  than  our  own.  In 
other  words,  it  would  seem  that  this  world  does  not 


*  1  Cor.  iv.  9. 


t  1  Pet.  i.  12. 


X  Heb.  xii.  23. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


331 


exist  for  itself  alone,  but  is,  in  some  manner  which  we 
cannot  yet  unless  most  vaguely  conceive,  to  serve  a  most 
important  purpose  of  example,  warning,  or  otherwise,  on 
behalf  of  other  portions  of  God’s  intelligent  creation. 
But  the  exceptionality,  so  to  call  it,  of  the  Christian 
dispensation  is  not  an  argument  against  its  being  true. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  substantive  argument  in  favour 
of  the  Gospel,  if  it  be  manifest  that  the  remedy  is  one 
adapted  to,  and  so  far  accounted  for  by,  the  disease  : 
that  it  tends  to  repair  the  rent  which  has  been  made  by 
disobedience  in  the  fair  order  of  the  world,  to  restore 
that  harmony  of  original  creation  which,  as  we  are  told, 
made  the  sons  of  God  shout  for  joy. 

In  truth,  it  seems  difficult  to  account  for  the  blind¬ 
ness  which  fails  to  perceive  the  profundity  of  wisdom 
which  underlies  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel.  The 
philosophy  of  the  Incarnation  is,  indeed,  a  great  and 
indestructible  philosophy.  It  was  said  that  Socrates 
plucked  wisdom  down  from  Heaven.  The  Incarnation 
brought  righteousness  out  of  the  region  of  cold  abstrac¬ 
tions,  clothed  it  in  flesh  and  blood,  opened  for  it  the 
shortest  and  the  broadest  way  to  all  our  sympathies, 
gave  it  the  firmest  command  over  the  springs  of  human 
action,  by  incorporating  it  in  a  person,  and  making  it, 
as  has  been  beautifully  said,  liable  to  love. 

Included  in  this  great  scheme,  the  doctrine  of  free 
pardon  is  not  a  passport  for  sin,  nor  a  derogation  from 
the  moral  order  which  carefully  adapts  reward  and 
retribution  to  desert,  but  stands  in  the  closest  harmony 
with  the  component  laws  of  our  moral  nature. 

According  to  St.  Matthew,'”'  our  Saviour  made  use  of 


* 


Matt.  ix.  5. 


332 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


these  words  :  “  Whether  is  it  easier  to  say,  c  Thy  sins 
be  forgiven  thee,’  or  to  say,  c  Arise  and  walk  ;  ’  ”  and 
then,  in  order  that  His  auditory  might  perceive  that  He 
was  invested  with  power  to  forgive  sins,  “  He  said  to  the 
sick  of  the  palsy,  c  Arise  and  walk  ;  ’  ”  and  the  impotent 
creature,  thus  endowed  with  strength,  arose  and  walked 
accordingly.  An  absolute  change  was  effected,  as  if 
by  magic,  in  the  physical  power  of  the  man.  And  we 
understand  that  when  his  sins  were  thus  forgiven  him, 
a  corresponding  moral  change  was  operated  in  his  soul. 
Was  there  here  an  opus  operation,  which  by  means  in¬ 
dependent  of  his  free  will  made  the  man  thereafter 
morally  a  different  man  from  what  he  had  been  before  ? 
Or  did  not  the  absolving  act  of  our  Lord  imply  and 
correspond  with  a  movement  belonging  to  and  residing 
in  the  interior  of  the  man  himself  ? 

There  are  modes  of  presenting  the  doctrine  of  pardon 
according  to  which  it  effects  an  absolution,  such  that, 
when  it  has  been  obtained,  we  have  only  to  enjoy  it,  and 
suffer  it  to  work  out  its  results,  every  other  requisite  of 
spiritual  progress  following  spontaneously.  But  if  this 
be  a  right  conception  of  it,  the  task  of  harmonising  such 
a  theory  with  the  ordinary  laws  which  govern  our  moral 
nature  becomes  far  from  an  easy  one. 

Pardon,  as  between  man  and  man,  implies  a  change 
of  intimate  relations,  but  not  necessarily  a  change  of 
inward  disposition ;  for  the  dispensers  of  human  pardons 
have  no  certain  insight  into  the  heart,  and  cannot  tell 
whether  the  receiver  of  the  absolution  is  worthy  or  un¬ 
worthy  to  receive  it.  If,  however,  he  be  worthy,  then 
the  grant  of  a  pardon  is  truly  operative  in  producing  a 
change  of  disposition.  The  child,  sorry  for  its  offence, 
and  receiving  pardon  from  the  parent,  is  sensible  at 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


333 


once  that  he  is  relieved  of  a  weight  which  oppressed  and 
retarded  him.  He  becomes  conscious  that  there  has 
been  removed  out  of  his  way  an  obstacle,  which  made 
it  harder  for  him  to  do  right  and  avoid  doing  wrong. 
There  was  a  clog  tied  about  his  neck,  which  impaired 
his  power  to  move.  Contidence  now  rejilaces  misgiving, 
and  cheerfulness  despondency.  The  effect  of  pardon 
in  the  Christian  system  affords  a  beautiful  illustration 
of  the  expression  of  the  Psalmist,*  who  assures  us  that 
his  feet  are  made  “  like  hart’s  feet,”  to  run  in  the  way 
of  righteousness.  And  the  graver  the  fault  may  have 
been,  the  greater  is  the  relief  enjoyed.  So  that,  as 
between  God  and  man,  pardon  is  a  real  power,  helpful 
to  the  great  end  of  sanctification.  In  one  point  of  view, 
it  is  an  anticipation  of  that  freedom  from  the  effect  of 
past  sin  on  the  habit  of  the  mind  which  may  only  be 
fully  attained  in  the  future.  But  it  is,  at  the  same 
time,  a  seal  or  stamp,  verifying  the  renunciation  of  sin, 
and  imparting  vigour  to  the  motives  by  which  it  is  pro- 
sjjectively  to  be  resisted.  AVithout  doubt,  it  is  vital  to 
bear  in  mind  that  pardon  is  in  its  essence  a  recognition 
of  a  change  which  has  already  taken  place,  as  well  as  an 
instrument  for  producing  further  change.  Even  Divine 
pardon  is  in  this  sense  essentially  declaratory.  Unless 
the  will  have  been  rectified,  there  can  be  no  effective 
pardon.  “  David  said  unto  Nathan,  ‘  I  have  sinned 
against  the  Lord.’  And  Nathan  said  unto  David,  ‘  The 
Lord  also  hath  put  away  thy  sin  •  thou  shalt  not  die.’  ”  t 
But  if  pardon  were  disjoined  from  the  condition  of  a  con¬ 
verted  will,  then,  indeed,  it  would  be  a  license  for  trans¬ 
gression,  instead  of  a  powerful  means  for  its  avoidance. 


*  Ps.  xviii.  33. 


f  2  Sam.  xii.  13. 


334 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


Iii  conclusion. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  that  works  and  proceed¬ 
ings  such  as  those  of  Mrs.  Besant  may  be  useful  to 
religion,  not  by  virtue  of  what  they  intend,  but  by 
virtue  of  the  controlling  Providence  which  shapes  their 
direction  and  effect,  in  total  independence  of  the  aims  of 
their  authors.  Of  the  four  propositions  of  Mrs.  Besant, 
one,  standing  second  in  order,  deals  with  the  problem 
presented  to  us  by  the  existence  of  evil  in  the  world 
created  and  ruled  by  an  all-powerful  as  well  as  all-holy 
God.  This  problem  appertains  to  theism  at  large,  and 
not  to  the  special  dispensation  of  the  Gospel.  The  other 
three,  touching  upon  the  eternity  of  future  punishment, 
the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  lead  us  upon  ground  properly  Christian.  I  sup¬ 
pose  it  cannot  be  denied  that  upon  each  and  all  of  these 
doctrines  rash  things  have  been  said,  with  the  intention 
of  defending  them,  but  with  a  great  lack  of  wisdom  in 
the  choice  of  means  for  making  that  defence  effectual. 
The  enemy,  prowling  round  the  fortress,  may  be  of  the 
highest  utility  in  awakening  the  care  and  vigilance  of 
those  to  whom  its  safety  is  entrusted.  In  making  use, 
however,  of  this  illustration,  we  have  to  recollect  that 
this  care  and  vigilance  are  to  be  employed  not  only 
against  the  foe  outside  the  walls,  but  against  ourselves. 
The  heat  of  controversy,  the  intermittent  negligence  of 
the  human  understanding  in  the  performance  of  its 
work,  and  the  aptitude  of  selfish  passions  to  clothe 
themselves  in  the  garb  of  zeal  for  religion,  are  among 
the  causes  which  may  require  the  exercise  of  careful 
and  constant  criticism  over  the  forms  of  language  in 
which  Christian  doctrine  has  to  be  inculcated,  and 
the  application  of  a  corrective  and  pruning  process  to 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


335 


retrench  excesses  unwittingly  committed  by  believers  ;  as 
well  as  to  supply  those  voids  in  the  assertion  of  doctrine 
which  result  from  the  wasting,  sapping,  and  gnawing 
operation  of  actual  heresy.  The  promise  of  perpetuity 
and  immortality  to  the  Church,  against  which  the  gates 
of  hell  are  not  to  prevail,  is  a  promise  to  the  Church  at 
large,  and  not  to  its  individual  members,  or  even  to  its 
particular  sections.  It  will  surely  not  be  denied  by  any 
person  of  candid  mind  that  these  possibilities  of  excess 
through  the  narrowness  and  temerity  of  unbalanced 
zeal  are  more  than  merely  abstract  possibilities.  They 
have  been  painfully  illustrated  in  practice.  We  have 
been  told  at  times  of  the  undiscriminating  grace  of  God, 
which  saves  or  consigns  to  damnation  according  to  mere 
choice  or  pleasure,  and  irrespectively  of  anything  in  the 
persons  whose  destinies  are  to  be  so  controlled  ;  so  that 
of  two  persons,  exactly  alike  in  point  of  service  or 
offence,  one  is  to  be  rescued  and  the  other  lost.  The 
meaning  of  this  would  be  that  the  sovereign  pleasure  of 
God  did  not  move  upon  lines  parallel  to  those  of  the 
moral  law.  Let  those,  who  are  so  inclined,  be  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  consequences  of  such  a  doctrine.  That  the 
apprehension  of  it  is  not  unreal,  may  be  readily  per¬ 
ceived  by  those  who  will  refer  to  the  Lambeth  Articles 
of  1595,  passed  by  Whitgift  and  certain  of  the  Eliza¬ 
bethan  Bishops,  but  never  incorporated  in  the  authorita¬ 
tive  documents  of  the  English  Church.  As  against 
them  and  all  such  utterances  we  rear  the  standard  of 
Scripture:  “Are  not  my  ways  equal?  are  not  your 
ways  unequal  ?  ”  *  And  we  welcome  aid,  from  Mrs. 
Besant  or  any  one  else,  which  recalls  us  from  rashness  to 


*  Ezek.  xviii.  25. 


336 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


vigilance  and  care.  Again,  and  in  closer  proximity  to  the 
present  subject,  we  have  seen  that  even  now  representa¬ 
tions  are  sometimes  made  which  seem  to  treat  the  Atone¬ 
ment  of  Christ  not  as  a  guarantee,  but  rather  as  a 
substitute  for  holiness.  For  if  sin,  which  is  undoubtedly 
a  debt,  be  nothing  but  a  debt,  if  it  be  so  detached  from 
the  person  of  the  debtor  that  when  it  is  paid  it  matters 
not  by  whom,  that  then  the  debtor  can  no  more  be 
challenged,  and  remains  as  he  was  before  in  all  things 
except  that  a  burden  has  been  discharged  from  his 
shoulders,  then  again  the  moral  laws  are  in  danger. 
For  those  laws  will  not  for  a  moment  tolerate  that  grace 
and  favour  be  disjoined  from  reformation,  justification 
from  repentance  and  conversion  of  the  heart. 

Such  are  the  openings  for  error,  which  are  due  to  the 
shortcomings  of  individuals,  or  of  factions  in  the  Church. 
It  is  needless  to  write  upon  the  deeper  question,  whether 
the  Christian  Church  at  large  is  wholly  exempt  from 
the  possibility  of  going  astray  in  matters  not  vital  to  the 
Christian  faith  ;  whether  the  promise  of  perpetual  life  is 
equivalent  to  a  promise  of  perpetual  and  perfect  health. 
It  can  hardly  be  said  that  this  question  is  disposed  of 
by  the  terms  of  the  promise  itself,  for  life  does  not  of 
itself  exclude  languor  and  disease.  Another  parallel 
may  be  drawn,  which  is  perhaps  not  wholly  fanciful. 
The  Christian  Church  has  the  promise  and  the  note  of 
sanctity,  no  less  than  of  truth.  And  yet  this  promise 
of  an  indestructible  holiness  and  striving  after  the  image 
of  God  does  not  exclude  vast  masses  of  sin  from  her  pre¬ 
cincts.  Why  should  imperfections  in  belief  be  less  com¬ 
patible  with  the  human  conditions  of  the  Christian 
dispensation  than  imperfections  in  practice,  provided 
they  are  subject  to  the  same  limiting  provision — this 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


337 


namely,  that  they  do  not  touch  the  central  seat  of  life ; 
do  not  destroy,  though  they  may  impair,  the  action  of 
the  Church  in  the  fulfilment  of  its  office'?  We  know 
that  the  tares  are  mingled  with  the  wheat ;  and  how  can 
we  be  certain  that  those  tares  may  not  signify  perverted 
thought  as  well  as  corrupted  action  ?  But  I  desist  from 
this  strain  of  observation,  and  bring  these  remarks  to  a 
close  with  the  suggestion  that,  according  to  the  estab¬ 
lished  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Christian 
Church,  the  great  Sacrifice  of  Calvary  does  not  under¬ 
mine  or  enfeeble,  but  illuminates  and  sustains,  the 
moral  law;  and  that  the  third  proposition  of  Mrs.  Besant, 
with  which  alone  we  are  here  concerned,  is  naught. 


I. 


z 


XI. 


THE  LORD’S  DAY." 

1895. 

The  citadel  of  Christianity  is  in  these  days  besieged  all 
round  its  circuit.  There  is  one  point,  however,  in  that 
circumference,  where  the  defence  presents  to  us  certain 
particularities.  That  point  is  the  article  of  Sabbath,  or 
more  properly  of  Lord’s  Day,  observance.  And  the  par¬ 
ticularities  are  two,  widely  separated  from  one  another. 
The  first  is  that,  among  the  forces  employed  in  defence, 
there  are  important  auxiliaries,  who  put  wholly  out  of 
view  the  revealed  sanction  and  the  properly  Christian 
motive  ;  who  are  not  and  do  not  profess  to  be  available 
for  the  work  of  active  defence  of  other  points  of  the 
precinct.  The  other  peculiarity  is  this  :  that  very  many 
of  those  defenders,  whose  motive  and  profession  are  not 
secular,  but  distinctly  religious,  are  singularly  ill- 
equipped  with  consistent  or  perspicuous  ideas  of  the 
subject,  and,  what  is  more,  that  in  their  ordinary 
practice  they  systematically  and  very  largely  make  over 
large  portions  of  the  day,  if  not  to  secular  occupations 
and  amusements,  yet  to  secular  thought  and  conversa¬ 
tion.  This  is  done  without  deliberate  or  conscious  in¬ 
sincerity  ;  yet  we  must  all  feel  that  when  the  margin 
between  profession  and  practice  has  become,  and  is 

*  Reprinted  from  The  Church  Monthly. 


339 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 

allowed  to  remain,  enormous,  real  insincerity  lies  peril¬ 
ously  near. 

As  to  the  first  head,  we  have  a  class,  or  more  than 
a  class,  who  view  the  subject  entirely  from  the  natural 
or  secular  side,  but  who  still  believe,  with  a  greater  or 
less  vivid  clearness  of  conviction,  that  a  periodical  day 
of  rest,  which  they  reasonably  associate  with  the  one  day 
in  seven  now  become  so  venerable  from  its  associations 
as  well  as  its  origin,  is  a  necessity  of  health,  as  well  for 
the  brain  of  man  as  for  the  general  fabric  of  his  body  : 
but  at  any  rate,  and  in  the  highest  degree,  for  corporeal 
health  and  vigour,  as  commonly  understood.  I  assume, 
and  also  very  strongly  believe,  this  to  be  generally  true, 
although  I  am  not  aware  that  the  opinion  has  ever  been 
made  the  subject  of  sanitary  statistics.  It  would,  how¬ 
ever,  be  interesting,  if  it  were  found  practicable,  to  test 
the  question  through  the  case  of  that  limited  proportion 
of  the  British  community,  who  do  not  in  one  way  or 
another  enjoy  at  the  least  some  considerable  amount  of 
relief  from  labour,  bodily  and  mental,  on  the  consecrated 
day,  by  a  definite  exhibition  of  results  on  health, 
through  a  comparison  of  their  experiences  with  those  of 
the  community  at  large. 

This  extremely  important  belief  seems  to  be  largely 
held  among  the  masses  of  the  people,  apart  from,  as  well 
as  in  connection  with,  the  ideas  of  religious  duty  and  of 
spiritual  health.  Even  the  most  devout  may  thus  think 
and  feel  without  any  inconsistency.  It  is  probably  both 
knowledge  of,  and  participation  in,  this  conception 
which  has  greatly  helped  the  continuance  of  Sabbath 
legislation,  nay,  the  increase  of  its  stringency  in  the 
particular  of  public-houses,  and  the  notable  caution 
and  self-restraint  of  the  House  of  Commons  as  to 


340  the  lord’s  day. 

administrative  changes  recommended  on  the  ground  of 
mental  recreation  and  improvement  for  the  people. 
There  can  be  no  reason,  why  the  firmest  believers  in  the 
Christian  character  and  obligation  of  the  day  should 
not  thankfully  avail  themselves  of  the  aid  derived  from 
alliance  with  this  secondary  but  salutary  sentiment. 

When  we  approach  the  second  head,  it  becomes  need¬ 
ful  to  separate  between  ideas  and  practice.  As  to  ideas, 
it  can  hardly  be  said  that  in  our  own  country,  of  which 
alone  I  speak,  the  general  mind  is  possessed  with  any 
conception,  at  once  accurate  and  clear,  of  the  religious 
ground,  on  which  we  are  to  observe  the  Sunday.  There 
is  a  hazy,  but  still  practical,  and  by  no  means  superficial, 
impression  that  in  some  way  or  other  it  has  to  do  with 
the  original  command  delivered  through  Moses,  so  often 
recited  in  our  churches,  and  backed  there  by  the  definite 
petition  that  God  will  incline  our  hearts  ‘ £  to  keep  this 
law.”  We  do  not  in  due  proportion  weigh  or  measure 
two  facts  which  at  this  point  bear  materially  on  the  case. 

Two  changes  have  indeed  been  imported  into  this 
law  ;  one  of  them  into  its  form,  the  other  into  its  spirit. 
The  first  has  been  altered  by  translation  of  the  com¬ 
mandment  from  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  to  the 
first :  the  second,  by  imparting  to  it  a  positive  and 
affirmative,  in  addition  to  its  originally  negative  and 
prohibitory  sense.  I  am  not  aware  that  the  sabbatical 
signification,  has  been  relaxed ;  and  it  has  certainly  been 
kept  in  very  full  view  by  the  Church,  and  by  the  State, 
of  England.  But  the  ascent  that  the  Fourth  Command¬ 
ment  of  the  Decalogue  has  made,  and  the  development 
and  expansion  that  it  has  received,  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  have  not  been  so  prominently  put  forward. 
Hence  perhaps  it  is  that  we  have  but  imperfectly  grasped 


the  lord’s  day.  341 

what  is  implied  in  what  we  familiarly  call  the  observance 
of  Sunday.  Possibly  there  may  have  been  a  concurring 
cause  for  this  defect  in  the  indisposition  of  many  minds, 
after  the  crisis  of  the  Reformation,  to  recognise  any 
action  of  the  Church  apart  from  actual  Scripture.  It  is 
difficult,  on  a  tranquil  survey  of  the  whole  ca,se,  to 
exclude  from  it  some  admission  of  such  action.  But,  so 
far  as  this  action  has  existed,  it  has  been  in  obvious 
furtherance  of  the  mind  of  the  Bible,  and  it  may  equit¬ 
ably  be  considered  not  as  raising  any  question  as  be¬ 
tween  clergy  and  laity,  but  as  expressing  the  harmonious 
co-operation  of  the  entire  Christian  community. 

The  auxiliary  evidence,  which  the  Old  Testament 
supplies  to  support  the  Fourth  Commandment,  is  ample. 
And  it  was  fortified  by  secondary  institutions,  such  as 
the  “  preparation  of  the  Sabbath,”  and  the  limitation  of 
the  Sabbath  day’s  journey.  It  was  not  relaxed  by  our 
Lord ;  who  lived  obediently  under  the  conditions  of  the 
older  covenant,  and  whom  we  are  evidently  to  under¬ 
stand,  on  some  marked  occasions,  not  as  impairing  the 
commandment,  but  as  protesting  against  and  cancelling 
an  artificial  and  extravagant  stiffness  in  its  interpreta¬ 
tion.  Cruden  (in  loc.)  observes  that  the  word  “  Sab¬ 
baths  ”  included  the  great  festivals  of  the  Jews.  But 
the  obligatory  force  of  the  Fourth  Commandment  as 
touching  the  seventh  day  is  destroyed  by  the  declaration 
of  St.  Paul  (Col.  ii.  16)  that  we  are  liable  to  be  judged 
or  coerced  by  none  in  respect  of  Sabbath  days.  This 
command  was  addressed,  as  is  obvious,  especially  to  J ews 
who  had  become  Christians ;  so  that  it  applies  with  an 
even  enhanced  force  to  us,  who  have  never  been  under 
the  obligations  of  the  Mosaic  law. 

The  opinion,  which  required  a  great  Sabbatarian 


342 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 


strictness,  has  in  all  likelihood  been  largely  consequent 
upon  the  Reformation  ;  and,  without  much  critical  in¬ 
vestigation  of  the  case,  has  rested  practically  upon  the 
Fourth  Commandment  of  the  Decalogue  as  it  stands. 
It  did  not,  however,  arise  at  once  out  of  the  great  move¬ 
ment,  even  in  Scotland,  where  it  eventually  attained  to 
a  pitch  of  rigour,  and  exhibited  a  tenacity  of  life,  pro¬ 
bably  greater  than  in  any  other  Christian  country.  If 
we  measure  things  not  as  they  were  Divinely  intended, 
nor  as  they  are  in  themselves,  but  as  they  are  subjec¬ 
tively  entertained,  it  might  be  a  question  whether  the 
Scottish  Sabbath  was  not  for  two  hundred  years  a 
greater  Christian  Sacrament,  a  larger,  more  vital,  and 
more  influential  fact  in  the  Christianity  of  the  country 
than  the  annual  or  sometimes  semi-annual  celebration 
of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  or  the  initiatory  rite  of  Baptism, 
or  both  together.  I  remember  that  when,  half  a  century 
ago,  ships  were  dispatched  from  Scottish  ports  to  South 
Australia,  then  in  its  infancy,  laden  with  well-organised 
companies  of  emigrants,  I  read  in  the  published  account 
of  one  of  them  that  perfect  religious  toleration  was 
established  as  the  general  rule  on  board  ;  but  that,  with 
regard  to  a  fundamental  article  of  religion  like  the 
Sabbath,  every  one  was  of  course  required  to  observe  it. 
Many  anecdotes  might  be  given  which  illustrate  the 
same  idea :  an  idea  open  to  criticism,  but  one  with 
which  the  Presbyterian  Church  cannot  well  afford  to 
part,  without  some  risk  to  the  public  power  and  general 
influence  of  religion. 

The  seventh  day  of  the  week  has  been  deposed  from 
its  title  to  obligatory  religious  observance,  and  its  pre¬ 
rogative  has  been  carried  over  to  the  flrst ;  under  no 
direct  precept  of  Scripture,  but  yet  with  a  Biblical 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 


343 


record  of  facts,  all  supplied  by  St.  John,  which  go  very 
far  indeed  towards  showing  that  among  the  Apostles 
themselves,  and  therefore  from  Apostolic  times,  the 
practice  of  Divine  worship  on  the  Lord’s  Day  has  been 
continuously  and  firmly  established.  The  Christian 
community  took  upon  itself  to  alter  the  form  of  the 
J ewish  ordinance ;  but  this  was  with  a  view  to  giving 
larger  effect  to  its  spiritual  purpose. 

The  seventh  day  had  been  ordained  as  the  most 
appropriate,  according  to  the  Decalogue,  for  commemo¬ 
rating  the  old  creation.  The  Advent  of  our  Lord  intro¬ 
duced  us  to  a  chain  of  events,  by  which  alone  the 
benefits  of  the  old  creation  were  secured  to  us,  together 
with  the  yet  higher  benefits  of  the  new.  The  series  of 
these  events  culminated  in  the  Resurrection.  With  the 
Resurrection  began,  for  the  Saviour  Himself,  a  rest 
from  all  that  was  painful  in  the  process  of  redemption, 
as  on  the  seventh  day  there  had  begun  a  rest  from  the 
constructive  labours  that  had  brought  the  visible  world 
into  existence  and  maturity. 

The  seventh  day  was,  then,  the  festival  of  the  old  life, 
accompanied  with  an  exemption  from  its  divinely 
appointed  burdens.  The  first  day  was  the  festival  of  the 
new  life,  and  was  crowned  with  its  constant  and  joyous 
exercise.  The  ordinances  of  joint  worship  exhibit  one 
particular  form  of  that  exercise.  The  act  of  the  Church 
or  Christian  community  in  altering  the  day  was  founded 
on  this  broad  and  solid  analogy  ;  and  was  also,  as  has  been 
said,  warranted  by  the  evidence  of  Apostolic  practice. 

On  the  day  of  Resurrection  itself,  in  the  evening,  the 
disciples  were  solemnly  assembled,  with  the  doors  shut 
“for  fear  of  the  Jews,”'"  and  the  Lord,  in  His  risen 


*  John  xx.  19. 


344  THE  lord’s  day. 

body,  appeared  among  them,  to  confer  on  them  their 
great  mission.*  Again,  on  the  eighth  day,  or,  as  we 
should  term  it,  seven  days  after  the  great  day  of  the 
Resurrection,  we  have  a  similar  assembly,  and  a  like 
appearance,  which  records  the  confirmation  of  the  faith 
of  St.  Thomas. t  The  same  Apostle,  who  had  linked 
together  thus  markedly  these  three  occasions,  introduces 
the  Apocalypse  to  us,  with  a  Proem  that  shows  his  deep 
sense  of  its  dignity  and  importance  ;  and  next  proceeds 
to  localise  it,  first  in  place,  by  describing  the  isle  of 
Patmos  as  the  scene,  and  then  in  time,  by  specifying 
that  he  was  “  in  the  spirit  on  the  Lord’s  Lay.”  |  We 
may  after  all  this  admit  that  the  aggregate  of  evidence 
for  the  obligation  of  meeting  together  for  worship  on  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  or  Lord’s  Lay,  has  not  literally  a 
demonstrative  character ;  but  we  must  assert  and  insist, 
that  its  several  parts  are  in  keeping  one  with  another, 
and  that  its  combined  force  is  morally  conclusive.  No 
Christian  can  entertain  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  che 
solidity  of  the  foundations  on  which  the  established 
tradition  and  practice  rest. 

But  it  remains  to  consider  a  portion  of  the  subject,  on 
which  the  prevailing  conceptions  are  the  most  lame  and 
incomplete. 

We  may  now  dismiss  the  question  of  the  authority 
for  the  Lord  s  Lay.  There  remains  the  further  question, 
What  is  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  religious  observ¬ 
ance  due  to  it  ?  Is  it,  apart  from  works  of  charity  and 
necessity,  which  1  set  aside  and  cover  by  a  general 
assumption  all  along,  the  setting  aside  of  worldly  busi¬ 
ness,  either  in  part  or  altogether?  Is  it  an  attendance 


*  John  xx.  21-23. 


f  Ibid.  26-28. 


X  Rev.  i.  9,  10. 


345 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 

on  public  worship,  in  quantity  penuriously  admitted, 
frugally  and  jealously  doled  out  ?  Is  the  demand  of 
duty,  is  the  religious  appetite  satisfied,  by  the  resort 
(be  it  more  punctual,  or  less)  to  a  single  service,  by  thus 
becoming  what  an  old  friend  of  mine  wittily  calls  “  a 
oncer  ”  ;  or  can  our  bounty  stand  the  drain  on  attention, 
and  on  our  available  hours,  of  two  regular  services  of 
the  Church?  Are  we  to  deal  with  the  question  how 
much  of  the  Lord’s  Day  shall  be  given  to  service  asso¬ 
ciated  with  its  name  in  the  spirit,  in  which  the  com¬ 
mander  of  a  capitulating  fortress  deals  with  the  incoming 
force,  when  he  works  for  a  maximum  of  indulgence, 
a  minimum  of  concession  in  return,  and  tempers  his 
thrift  only  by  a  prudent  care  to  avoid  a  rupture  ?  Or, 
if  the  question  be  not  too  audacious,  is  all  this  haggling 
and  huxtering  upon  quantities  and  portions  beside  the 
purpose,  and  is  there  not  open  to  us,  for  the  determina¬ 
tion  of  the  entire  controversy,  and  for  marking  out  the 
lines  of  duty,  “a  more  excellent  way”;  a  way,  not  to 
be  ascertained  by  embarking  on  any  voyage  of  fanciful 
investigation,  but  simply  by  examining  the  first  and 
fundamental  elements  of  the  case  ? 

May  it  not  be  that  the  Apostles,  and  the  community 
which  they  guided,  saw  that  they  had  to  deal  with  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  and  that  the  course  dictated  to 
them  by  the  essential  bearings  of  the  case  was,  not  to 
abrogate,  nor  to  contract,  nor  in  any  manner  to  dis¬ 
parage  it,  but  (so  to  speak)  to  transform  it  from  within 
outwards  ;  to  stand  upon  the  analogy  which  it  suggested, 
and  to  supply  the  obvious  application  to  the  enlarged 
and  altered  position?  The  change  from  the  seventh 
day  to  the  first  was  one  which  could  not  be  arbitrarily 
made.  So  it  appears,  as  we  were  justly  told  at  the 


346 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 


recent  parliament  of  Religions  in  America,  by  the 
representative  of  one  leading  strain  of  Jewish  thought, 
M.  Pereira  Mendez ;  who,  on  behalf  of  the  strict 
Mosaists,  declared  that  they  could  not  accept  a  first  day 
“  Sabbath.”  *  We  can  ;  and  the  authority,  which  is  on 
our  side,  has  also  reason  at  its  back.  The  old  Sabbath 
was  the  festival  of  rest  from  labour  with  the  hand  : 
a  festival  of  the  body,  or  the  natural  life  :  a  festival 
negative  in  its  character,  for  its  fundamental  conception 
was  simply  a  conception  of  what  man  was  not  to  do. 
The  Redeemer,  like  the  Creator,  had  His  work,  and  had 
His  rest  from  His  work ;  this  was  on  the  Resurrection 
day,  and  the  Apostles  and  the  Church  instituted  the 
festival  of  the  new  life,  as  the  Creator  had  (and  surely 
from  the  beginning)  appointed  the  festival  of  the  old. 

The  festival  of  the  new  life.  Not  merely  of  the  act 
of  our  Lord’s  rising,  which  had  for  its  counterpart  the 
act  of  the  Creator’s  resting  ;  but  of  the  life,  and  the 
employments  of  the  life,  which  in  His  Resurrection- 
body  He  then  ushered  into  the  world.  Here  comes 
into  view  a  point  not  only  of  difference,  but  of  contrast. 
The  Fourth  Commandment  enjoined  not  a  life  but 
a  death,  and  all  that  may  now  be  thought  to  require 
a  living  observance  of  the  day,  is  not  read  in,  but  (as 
the  lawyers  say)  read  into  it.  But  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord’s  Da.y  is  the  unsealing  of  a  fountain  head, 
a  removal  of  the  graveclothes  from  the  man  found  to  be 
alive,  the  opening  of  a  life  spontaneous  and  continuous. 
It  reminds  me  of  the  arm  of  a  Highland  river,  which 
the  owner  of  the  estate  dammed  up  with  a  sluice  on  all 
ordinary  days :  but  on  special  days  he  removed  the 


*  Indian  Church  Quarterly  Review ,  October,  1894,  p.  388. 


347 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 

barrier,  and  the  waters  flowed.  And  flowed  how  long  1 
Until  the  barrier  was  replaced.  Not  for  a  measured 
half  hour  or  hour,  but  as  long  as  they  were  free  to  flow  ; 
and  not  by  propulsion  from  without,  but  by  native 
impulse  from  within.  And  in  like  manner  the  question, 
for  the  Christian  is,  not  how  much  of  the  Lord’s  Lay 
shall  we  give  to  service  directly  Divine.  If  there  be 
any  analogous  question  it  is  rather,  how  much  of  it  can 
we  withhold  ?  A  suggestion  to  which  the  answer 
obviously  is,  as  much,  and  as  much  only,  as  is  required 
by  necessity.  With  this  come  charity  and  mercy  ;  but 
these  are  not  exceptions  ;  for  they  are  in  themselves 
exercises  of  the  new  life.  These  are  undoubtedly  terms 
of  a  certain  elasticity  ;  but  they  are  quite  capable  of 
sufficient  interpretation  by  honest  intention  and  an 
enlightened  conscience.  If  it  be  said  that  religious 
services  are  not  suited  for  extension  over  the  whole  day, 
and  could  only  lead  to  exhaustion  and  reaction  into 
lethargy,  I  would  reply  that  the  business  of  religion 
is  to  raise  up  our  entire  nature  into  the  image  of  God, 
and  that  this,  properly  considered,  is  a  large  employ¬ 
ment  ;  so  large,  that  it  might  even  be  termed  as  having 
no  bounds.  But  the  limit  will  be  best  determined  by 
maintaining  a  true  breadth  of  distinction  between  the 
idea  of  the  new  life  and  the  work  of  the  old.  All  that 
admits  the  direct  application  of  the  new  spirit,  all  that 
most  vividly  brings  home  to  us  the  presence  of  God,  all 
that  savours  most  of  emancipation  from  this  earth  and 
its  biscentum  catenae ,  is  matter  truly  proper  to  the  Lord’s 
Day.  What  it  is  in  each  case,  the  rectified  mind  and 
spirit  of  the  Christian  must  determine.  What  is  essen¬ 
tial  is  that  to  the  new  life  should  belong  the  flower  and 
vigour  of  the  day.  We  are  born,  on  each  Lord’s  Day 


348 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 

morning,  into  a  new  climate,  a  new  atmosphere  :  and  in 
that  new  atmosphere  (so  to  speak),  by  the  law  of  a 
renovated  nature,  the  lungs  and  heart  of  the  Christian 
life  should  spontaneously  and  continuously  drink  in  the 
vital  air. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  this  view  of  the  subject 
disparages  the  Christian  life  of  the  other  six  days  of  the 
week.  A  fatal  objection,  if  only  the  fact  were  so.  But 
I  believe  that,  if  we  search  the  matter  to  the  bottom, 
it  is  found  difficult  or  impossible  to  reach  any  other  firm 
foundation  for  the  observance  of  the  Lord’s  Lay.  The 
counter  idea  is  to  give  a  certain  portion  of  the  day  to 
work  associated  with  the  new  life,  and  to  withhold  the 
rest.  On  what  authority,  what  groundwork  of  principle, 
does  such  an  idea  rely  for  its  warrant  ?  There  is  no 
allocation  of  a  portion,  of  a  quantum  of  time  weekly  for 
such  a  purpose  commanded  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  none 
in  the  New ;  none  in  the  known  practice  and  tradition 
of  the  Church.  Would  it  not  seem  that  this  is  the  plan 
that  savours  of  will-worship,  rather  than  the  other? 
The  observance  of  the  Lord’s  Lay  by  continuing  spiritual 
service  rests,  in  its  inner  soul  and  meaning,  not  on 
a  mere  injunction,  but  on  a  principle. 

Loes  then  that  principle  import  any  dishonour  to 
the  general  law  of  love,  obedience,  and  conformity  to 
the  Livine  commands,  which  embraces  all  days  alike 
without  preference  or  distinction  of  degree  ?  It  does 
nothing  of  the  kind.  The  service  of  God  in  this  world 
is  an  unceasing  service,  without  interval  or  suspense. 
But,  under  the  conditions  of  our  physical,  intellectual, 
and  social  life,  a  very  large  portion  of  that  service  is 
necessarily  performed  within  the  area  which  is  occupied 
by  this  world  and  its  concerns,  yet  within  which  every 


THE  lord’s  day.  349 

Christian  grace  finds  perpetual  room  for  its  exercise. 
But  for  its  exercise  under  circumstances  not  allowing 
the  ordinary  man,  unless  in  the  rarest  cases,  that  near¬ 
ness  of  access  to  the  things  of  God,  that  directness  of 
assimilation  to  the  Divine  life,  which  belongs  to  a  day 
consecrated  to  spiritual  opportunity.  So  the  grace  and 
compassion  of  our  Lord  have  rescued  from  the  open 
ground  of  worldly  life  a  portion  of  that  area,  and  have 
made  upon  it  a  vineyard  seated  on  a  very  fruitful  hill, 
and  have  fenced  it  in  with  this  privilege,  that,  whereas 
for  our  six  day  work  the  general  rule  of  direct  contact 
must  for  the  mass  of  men  be  with  secular  affairs,  within 
this  happy  precinct  there  is  provided,  even  for  that  same 
mass  of  men,  a  chartered  emancipation  ;  and  the  general 
rule  is  reversed,  in  favour  of  a  direct  contact  with 
spiritual  things. 

I  do  not  enter  upon  the  question  how  far  the  con 
siclerations  here  stated  bear  upon  the  case  of  Festivals 
other  than  the  Lord’s  Day.  They  do  not  all  of  them 
seem  to  fall  into  the  same  category,  one  with  another, 
by  reason  of  the  great  difference  between  the  determin¬ 
ing  epochs  of  the  Incarnate  life  of  our  Lord,  and  some 
minor  commemorations.  None  of  them  are  in  precise 
correspondence  with  the  case  of  the  Lord’s  Day,  though 
by  analogy  they  are  carried  very  near  its  substance,  and 
fully  correspond  with  its  occasion,  so  that  we  are  at 
once  reminded  of  that  similar  case  in  the  Hebrew 
records,  where  the  great  annual  festivals  of  the  Israelites 
are  held  to  be  sometimes  comprised  under  the  description 
of  Sabbaths. 

Neither  do  I  advert,  as  I  write  for  our  own  insular 
case,  to  diversities  of  idea  and  practice  prevailing  in 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church  other  than  our  own. 


350  the  lord’s  day 

Finally,  the  very  last  idea  that  I  should  desire  to 
convey  is  that  the  idea  of  the  Lord’s  Day,  which  has 
here  been  suggested,  is  novel  or  original.  The  case 
is  rather  thus  :  it  is  an  idea  which,  through  the  want 
of  precision  in  the  habitual  thoughts  of  men,  has  fallen 
into  the  shade,  and  given  place  to  other  ideas  presented 
in  a  shape  more  sharply  defined.  I  cannot  here  do 
better  than  take  refuge  under  the  authority  of  one 
of  the  very  greatest  Doctors  of  the  Church,  I  mean 
St.  Augustine.  In  many  places  he  touches  upon  the 
Sabbath.  Our  Sabbath,  he  says,  is  in  the  heart ;  in  the 
peace  of  Christian  hope.  It  is  the  work  of  God,  not 
our  own.* * * § **  Our  “  Sabbatism  ”  is  an  entry  upon  that  life 
“  which  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  hath 
the  heart  of  man  conceived  ” ;  it  is  the  bliss  of  immor¬ 
tality.  |  Its  fundamental  idea  is  “rest  ”  ;  rest  inhabited 
by  sanctification.  Tbi  Sanctijicatio,  quia  ibi  Sqnritus 
Dei.  |  The  soul  can  have  rest  only  in  God,  and  the  love 
of  God  is  perfect  sanctification,  the  Sabbath  of  Sab¬ 
baths^  “Even  now  my  Father  works,”  says  our  Lord. 
Yes,  but  not  in  carnal  work,  and  here  is  the  removal 
of  the  veil. II  This  is  the  rest  promised  to  the  faithful 
in  doing  good  works,  ^  and  walking  in  newness  of  life, 
even  as  God  works  while  He  rests.  What  chiefly 
brings  the  people  together  on  the  Day  of  Lest,  is 
hunger  for  the  Word  of  God.##  The  fulness  of  Divine 


*  St.  Augustine,  Enarr.  in  Psalm  xci. 

f  Ibid.,  Serm.  259,  on  the  Octave  of  Easter. 

X  Serm.  8,  on  the  Ten  Plagues. 

§  Serm.  33,  on  Psalm  cxliii. 

||  Be  Genesi,  Book  i. 

Be  Genesi,  ad  litt.,  Book  iv. 

**  Serm.  128,  on  John  v. 


THE  LORD’S  DAY. 


351 


benediction  and  sanctification  is  the  highest  Sabbath.* 
The  Lord’s  Day  anticipates  the  time  when  we  shall  rest 
and  see,  see  and  love,  love  and  praise,  in  the  end  that 
has  no  end.|  It  is  undeniable  that  throughout  St. 
Augustine  treats  the  day  as  a  whole,  that  he  postulates 
an  entire  withdrawal  from  worldly  occupation,  and  that 
he  regards  this  as  the  basis  of  a  rest  and  of  an  activity, 
which  prefigure  both  of  those  in  Heaven.  In  more  than 
one  place,  too,  censuring  a  contemporaneous  Jewish 
laxity,  he  declares  that  useful  labour  on  the  Day  of  Rest 
would  be  preferable  to  the  frivolities  of  recreation. 
And  now  having  brought  St.  Augustine  before  the 
reader  to  explain  the  basis  of  Lord’s  Day  observance, 
I  feel  that  there  can  be  no  more  appropriate  moment 
for  withdrawing  myself  from  his  attention. 


XII. 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S 

PICTORIAL  BIBLE  A 


1891. 

I. 

It  sometimes  happens,  in  the  crisis  of  a  great  engage¬ 
ment,  that  the  fiercest  of  the  conflict  rages  round  the 
standard,  which  the  one  party  is  struggling  to  capture 
and  the  other  to  save  from  the  grasp  of  hostile  hands ; 
and  it  is  even  so  at  the  present  day  with  reference  to 
the  subject  of  this  prefatory  notice.  There  is  a  banner 
which  waves,  and  which  is  seen  to  wave,  on  high,  over 
the  whole  of  that  field — the  widest  and  by  far  the  most 
noteworthy  in  the  world — on  which  is  being  fought  out 
the  battle  which  is  the  greatest  of  all  battles,  and  which 
ultimately  may  be  found  to  include  all  the  rest  :  the 
battle  of  belief  in  Christ.  Is  there,  or  is  there  not,  one 
great  and  special  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  to  man¬ 
kind,  vital  to  the  welfare  of  the  human  race  ? 

This  banner  is  the  banner  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Vast  and  essential  as  is 
the  living  agency  by  which  the  work  of  the  Gospel  is  to 
be  carried  on,  and  to  which  indeed  it  was  first  committed 
by  the  Saviour,  that  living  agency  is  for  the  present 
broken  up  into  fractions,  which  seem  to  maintain  or 


*  Printed  in  the  United  States,  at  Chicago. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  353 

even  to  consolidate  themselves  on  their  separate  bases, 
and  no  one  among  which  commands  the  adhesion  of  a 
full  moiety  of  the  entire  body.  But  there  is  no  division, 
or  at  the  least  there  is  no  great  and  vital  division  amoim 
Christians  even  as  to  the  older  Testament ;  as  to  the 
Testament  of  the  Gospel,  or  the  new  covenant,  there  is 
no  division  at  all. 

There  was  a  preparatory  period  after  the  ascension  of 
our  Lord,  approaching  three  centuries  in  extent,  during 
which  the  several  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
exercising  a  profound  and  comprehensive  influence, 
although  the  Canon,  or  complete  list  of  the  books 
acknowledged  as  due  to  divine  inspiration,  had  not  yet 
been  completed.  Even  after  that  preliminary  stage, 
paganism  had  enough  of  remaining  strength  in  its  death 
agony  to  continue  its  partial  and  spasmodic  efforts, 
which  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  altogether  ceased  when 
the  sword  of  Mahomet  and  his  successors  invaded  and 
seriously  curtailed  the  territory  that  had  been  already 
won.  Yet,  upon  the  whole,  the  boundaries  of  the 
Church,  through  the  course  of  many  centuries,  were 
greatly  widened.  Not  indeed  without  many  and  sad 
diversities  of  experience  :  aberrations  in  doctrine, 
ruptures  of  communion,  extravagant  assumptions  of 
authority,  and  frightful  corruption  of  manners  acknow¬ 
ledged  on  all  hands.  Yet  the  life  from  within  could  not 
be  repressed,  and  more  and  more  lands  were  added  to 
the  Gospel  profession.  In  modern  times,  the  process  of 
occupying  the  earth  has  been  carried  on  more  largely  by 
growth  of  population  and  by  emigration  than  by  bring¬ 
ing  new  nations  within  the  fold.  But  during  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  there  has  been  some  renewal  of  activity 
and  progress.  Doubtless  the  kingdom  of  God  within  us 


354  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

has  been  even  more  doubtful  and  defective  in  its  de¬ 
velopment  than  the  kingdom  of  God  without  us.  But 
wherever  Christianity  has  gone,  whatever  its  agents 
have  taught,  and  however  little  its  professors  may  have 
adorned  their  calling,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places  it 
has  carried  with  it  the  plenary  acknowledgment  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

Contemporaneously  with  the  attainment  and  main¬ 
tenance  of  this  great  and  unrivalled  ascendency,  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  comprehensive  and  effective  warfare 
against  it  from  beyond  the  borders  of  Christendom,  the 
conflict,  which  was  noticed  at  the  outset  of  the  present 
paper,  has  been  raised  against  this  great  and  acknow¬ 
ledged  treasure  of  all  Christians  from  within  the  borders 
of  Christendom  itself,  and  carried  on  wholly  or  mainly 
by  those  who  have  passed  through  the  waters  of  baptism. 
But  formidable  as  it  is,  it  does  not  imply  either  any  dis¬ 
position  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  Christian  com¬ 
munities  generally  to  abate  their  allegiance  to  the  Holy 
Word,  or  their  hopes  of  the  coming  time.  Indeed,  it 
has  been  simultaneously  with  the  undermining  dis¬ 
integrating  movement,  that  the  religion  of  Christ  has 
assumed  more  visibly  than  ever  a  commanding  position 
in  the  world.  It  is  for  mankind  the  greatest  of  all 
phenomena,  the  greatest  of  all  facts.  It  is  the  dominant 
religion  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  planet  at  least  in  two 
important  respects.  It  commands  the  largest  number  of 
professing  adherents.  If  we  estimate  the  population  of 
the  globe  at  fourteen  hundred  millions  (and  some  would 
state  a  higher  figure),  between  four  and  five  hundred 
millions  of  these,  or  one-third  of  the  whole,  are  profess¬ 
ing  Christians ;  and  at  every  point  of  the  circuit  the 
question  is  not  one  of  losing  ground,  but  of  gaining  it. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  355 

The  fallacy  which  accepted  the  vast  population  of  China 
as  Buddhists  in  the  mass  has  been  exploded,  and  it  is 
plain  that  no  other  religion  approaches  the  numerical 
strength  of  Christianity ;  doubtful,  indeed,  whether 
there  be  any  that  reaches  to  one-half  of  it.  The  second 
of  the  particulars  now  under  view  is  perhaps  even  more 
important.  Christianity  is  the  religion  in  the  command 
of  whose  professors  is  lodged  a  proportion  of  power  far 
exceeding  its  superiority  of  numbers  ;  and  this  power  is 
both  moral  and  material.  In  the  area  of  controversy  it 
can  hardly  be  said  to  have  a  serious  antagonist. 

Force,  secular  or  physical,  is  accumulated  in  the  hands 
of  Christians  in  a  proportion  absolutely  overwhelming ; 
and  the  accumulation  of  influence  is  not  less  remarkable 
than  that  of  force.  This  is  not  surprising,  for  all  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  influence  have  their  home  within  the  Christian 
precinct.  The  art,  the  literature,  the  systematised  in¬ 
dustry,  invention,  and  commerce  of  the  world  are  almost 
wholly  Christian.  In  Christendom  alone  there  seems 
to  lie  an  inexhaustible  power  of  world-wide  expansion. 
The  nations  of  Christendom  are  everywhere  arbiters  of 
the  fate  of  non-christian  nations.  In  every  part  and 
parcel  of  the  mass  now  so  wondrously  developed  and 
diversified,  there  is,  and  there  has  for  fifteen  hundred 
years  been  rendered,  an  allegiance  to  the  Holy  Bible, 
alike  uninterrupted  and  unreserved.  And  that  allegi¬ 
ance  was  consistently  applied  in  promoting  the  free  cir¬ 
culation  of  the  Scriptures  until  the  sixteenth  century  ; 
when  the  circumstances  of  the  time  unhappily  brought 
about  a  change,  at  least  within  the  pale  of  the  Latin  or 
Western  Church.  And  although  in  the  controversies  of 
the  day  the  Bible  may  perhaps  be  said  to  stand  upon 
the  defensive,  it  will  surely  be  admitted  that,  in  and 


.356  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


since  the  early  part  of  the  now  almost  expiring  century, 
it  may  be  said  to  have  issued  a  kind  of  challenge  to  the 
powers  of  the  world  at  large.  This  challenge  was  first 
delivered  principally  from  Great  Britain,  and  only  by  a 
portion  of  the  Christian  body,  although  that  body  is  now 
more  united  upon  its  form.  They  were  Protestants, 
they  were  English-speaking  Protestants,  they  were 
English-speaking  Protestants,  chiefly  of  the  non-conform¬ 
ing  type,  or  in  varying  degrees  of  sympathy  with  it, 
who  conceived  the  idea  of  an  association  marked,  even 
in  its  day  of  small  things,  by  its  aspiring  and  compre¬ 
hensive  aims.  Bishop  Heber,  in  the  early  infancy  of 
modern  missions,  wrote  as  to  their  work,  the  lines, 

“  Waft,  waft,  ye  winds,  his  story, 

And  you,  ye  waters,  roll, 

Till  like  a  sea  of  glory, 

It  spreads  from  pole  to  pole.” 

The  society  was  not  to  represent,  befriend,  or  oppose, 
any  particular  community  of  Christians,  but  it  was  to 
circulate  the  Divine  Word  among  all  nations  and  in  all 
languages.  They  were  to  open  a  great  armoury,  where  all 
who  would  were  to  find  greatly  augmented  facilities  for 
obtaining  the  chief  weapon  needed  in  the  work  of  con¬ 
version.  They  were  not  deterred  from  their  under¬ 
taking  by  the  enormous  difficulty  of  reproducing  the 
sacred  text  in  countless  tongues,  most  of  them  imper¬ 
fectly  understood,  many  of  them  wholly  unknown,  and 
spoken  only  by  races  of  uncivilised  men,  equipped  only 
with  the  most  limited  A7ocabularies  and  the  narrowest 
ideas.  Nor  was  their  work  arrested  by  the  recollection 
that  the  church  of  the  New  Testament  was  propagated 
under  the  authority  of  our  Saviour,  in  its  earlier 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD*S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  357 

experiences,  not  by  written  documents  but  by  the  agency 
of  living  men.  They  may  have  reasoned  on  the  belief 
that  living  men  would  continue  to  supply  their  proper 
propelling  force,  and  would  derive,  from  a  larger  supply  of 
copies  of  the  written  Word,  a  manifest  increase  of  power 
in  the  fulfilment  of  their  work.  Who  can  deny  that 
this  was  a  brave  and  a  great,  even  if  an  incomplete 
conception.  It  would  be  alike  a  violation  of  charity  and 
of  common  sense  to  surmise  that  the  founders  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  had  for  their  leading, 
or  probably  for  an  acknowledged  aim  any  polemical 
advantage  in  those  controversies  which  divide  Christians. 
They  probably  regarded  the  Scriptures  not  as  a  tangled 
thicket  of  dispute,  but  as  “  a  green  pasture  ”  of  im¬ 
measurable  richness  for  the  souls  of  the  people  of  God. 

The  material  result  has  been  beyond  doubt  remark¬ 
able.  The  Sacred  Scriptures  have  been  sown  broadcast 
over  the  world  ;  and  in  a  new  sense  “  their  sound  has 
gone  out  into  all  lands.”  By  the  agency  of  this  Society 
taken  alone,  the  Bible,  or  integral  parts  of  it,  have  been 
circulated  to  the  extent  of  more  than  one  hundred  and 
forty  million  copies,*  in  three  hundred  and  twenty 
languages,  and  without  any  note  or  comment. 

The  philological  effect  of  this  vast  operation  has  been 
remarkable.  A  variety  of  languages,  previously  without 
organisation  of  any  kind,  have,  since  and  in  connection 
with  the  action  of  the  Society,  come  to  be  possessed  of 
lexicons  and  grammars.  There  is  a  further  very  large 
British  circulation  independent  of  the  Society ;  but  we 
may  justly  borrow  from  the  old  mythologies  to  term  it 


*  Annual  Report  of  the  Society  for  1894,  p.  314  ;  with  an  allowance 
for  part  of  1895  not  included. 


358  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

the  hundred-handed  and  the  hundred-eyed.  Its  daily 
issues  from  its  different  depots  exceed  twelve  thousand 
copies,*  and  in  1892  they  rose  for  the  year  to  four 
millions.  A  kindred  institution  in  America  likewise 
operates  upon  a  very  large,  if  a  less  gigantic,  scale.  Has 
this  been  a  casting  of  pearls  before  swine,  in  the  sense 
of  thrusting  the  sacred  volume  wholesale  upon  men  un¬ 
prepared  for  its  becoming  reception?  Who  can  say  that 
such  miscarriage  may  not  have  occurred  at  some  point 
of  a  prolonged  experience,  and  a  vast  organisation  ? 
.But  there  is  no  reason  known  to  me  for  supposing  that 
such  things,  if  indeed  they  have  happened,  have  been 
more  than  rare  exceptions.  This  immense  multiplication 
of  the  copies  of  Scripture  has  been  not  only  con¬ 
temporaneous,  but  associated  with  that  remarkable 
enlargement  of  missionary- activity,  which  has  supplied  a 
prominent  feature  of  the  religious  history  of  this  century, 
and  especially  of  its  latter  moiety. 

The  mental  questionings  of  these  times  were  doubtless 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  Scriptures  apart  from  any 
efforts  made  to  extend  their  circulation  and  their 
influence.  These  were  most  active  in  Germany,  which 
had  smaller  concern  with  Bible  societies  or  missions. 
But  the  challenge  implied  in  a  scheme  which  may  be 
said  to  have  aimed  at  carrying  the  Bible  to  every 
member  of  the  human  family  might  also  be  likely  to  con¬ 
centrate  the  electric  fluid  of  criticism  floating  in  the 
atmosphere,  and  to  precipitate  it  upon  the  object  which 
was  becoming  so  provokingly  conspicuous. 


*  The  ‘  Gospel  in  Many  Tongues,’  p.  94. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  359 


II. 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  contents  of  the  sacred  books, 
we  at  once  perceive  that  they  have  not  been  framed 
with  any  view  of  evading  conflict  by  the  limitation  of 
claims  and  pretensions.  Of  the  other  sacred  books, 
current  in  the  world  among  various  peoples,  they  take 
no  notice  whatever.  Their  claim  to  authority  is  abso¬ 
lute  throughout ;  and  the  God,  in  whose  name  they 
speak,  is  proclaimed  all  along  as  the  only  and  as  the 
universal  God. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  never  speak  of 
themselves  as  a  whole ;  although  the  Old  Testament 
obtains  recognition  in  that  character  not  only  from  the 
Jewish  race,  but  from  our  Saviour,  in  the  threefold  and 
popularly  understood  division  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Psalms.  The  obvious  reason  of  this  last  designa¬ 
tion,  which  was  meant  to  embrace  the  whole  Hagiographa, 
was  that  the  Psalms  were  named  first  in  the  list  of 
these  books.  The  New  Testament  was  gradually  formed 
in  separate  books,  as  the  Old  had  been.  These  books 
appear  all  to  have  been  issued  within  about  two  genera¬ 
tions  after  the  lifetime  of  our  Lord,  but  more  than  two 
centuries  passed  before  their  systematic  acknowledgment 
and  incorporation  in  a  collected  mass,  although  the 
number  of  books  which  did  not  obtain  immediate  recog¬ 
nition,  wherever  they  were  known,  was  a  small  proportion 
of  the  whole.  But  here  we  perceive  one  of  the  high 
prerogatives  of  the  Scriptures  which  helps  to  explain 
their  close  and  elastic  adaptation  to  the  progressive 
needs  of  our  race.  No  other  sacred  books  are  so 
minutely  and  exactly  divided  by  periods  and  by 


360  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

authorship.  No  others  cover  so  vast  a  range  of  time  and 
of  diversified  human  history.  They  began  for  a  family, 
and  they  ended  for  a  world.  Not  given  at  once  and 
in  stereotype,  but  “  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners.”  *  This  is  one  of  many  points  of  severalty  on 
which  it  will  be  right  to  touch,  as  marking  them  off 
from  other  records  purporting  to  be  in  the  same  mode 
and  sense  divine.  Nor  have  they  at  any  period  wanted 
the  advantage  of  attestation  from  without.  It  was  the 
office,  first  of  the  Jewish  people  and  then  of  the  Christian 
church,  to  bear  to  them  an  audible  and  living  witness, 
which  has  sounded  out  through  all  the  ages.  The  flock 
have  attested  the  documents,  while  the  documents  have 
checked  the  aberrations  and  rebuked  the  shortcomings 
and  the  corruptions  of  the  flock.  They  constitute  one 
great  and  majestic  trilogy,  as  they  present  to  us,  first, 
the  creation  and  completion  of  the  material  universe, 
with  the  introduction  of  man  to  his  earthly  home ; 
secondly,  his  fall  from  innocence  into  a  state  funda¬ 
mentally  deteriorated,  through  wilful  sin,  together  with 
the  immediate  dawning  of  u  a  light  in  a  dark  place,” 
through  promises  which  were  to  save  him  from  despair  ; 
and  thirdly,  the  great  redemption  from  the  ruin  thus 
let  loose  by  the  life,  death  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour,  with  a  course  of  jirophetic  intimations 
reaching  to  the  consummation  of  the  world.  Is  there 
any  other  case  of  a  collection  of  records  which  thus  deals 
with  the  history  of  our  species  from  its  cradle  to  its  grave, 
and  in  this  comprehensive  grasp  asserts  its  commanding 
authority  over  the  race  as  a  whole  ?  I  apprehend  that 
all  other  documents  claiming  kindred  with  the  Bible 


*  Heb.  i.  1. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  361 


rather  bear  the  stamp  of  the  occasional  or  accidental,  of 
a  work  ended  and  put  by. 

The  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  several  books  of 
Holy  Scripture  is  far  from  being  identical  with  that  of 
their  genuineness  and  authority.  According  to  the 
general  and  thoroughly  reasonable  belief  of  Jews  and 
Christians,  this  authorship  began  with  Moses,  a  great 
man  whose  position  in  history  is  far  too  solidly  estab¬ 
lished  to  be  shaken.  The  form  of  the  earliest  book 
appears  to  show  that  he  collected,  under  the  Divine 
guidance,  those  primitive  traditions  of  the  race,  which, 
whether  accurate  or  not  in  every  particular,  retain,  and 
alone  retain,  all  the  features  required  in  order  to  convey 
to  us  the  outlines  of  Divine  government  in  the  creation, 
administration,  and  redemption  of  the  world.  It  is  not 
necessary  here  to  inquire  whether  each  and  every  por¬ 
tion  of  the  books  ascribed  to  Moses  had  him  for  its 
author,  or  whether,  besides  the  palpable  case  of  the 
chapter  *  which  relates  his  death,  other  additions  in 
furtherance  may  have  been  made.  Christendom  at 
large,  as  well  as  the  Jewish  nation,  firmly  believe  that 
he  and  none  other  was  the  great  legislator  of  the 
Hebrew  people  ;  that  the  vital  substance  of  his  legislation 
remains  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch ;  and,  as  it  may  be 
added,  that  never  in  human  history  was  any  legislation 
so  profoundly  and  so  durably  stamped  upon  the  life, 
character,  and  experiences,  even  down  to  the  visible 
and  clamant  witness  of  the  present  day,  of  those  to 
whom  it  was  addressed. 

The  higher  and  inner  meaning  of  these  general  state¬ 
ments  has  yet  to  be  brought  more  pointedly  into  view. 


*  Deut.  xxxiv. 


362  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


We  justly  dwell  upon  the  unapproachable  elevation,  and 
the  wonderful  purity  of  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  in  their 
general  tenour.  But  it  cannot  be  too  clearly  understood, 
when  attempts  are  made  to  reduce  the  Bible  to  the 
level  of  other  ancient  records,  that  we  claim  on  its 
behalf  this  distinctive  and  exclusive  character,  that  it 
revealed  to  man  truths  absolutely  vital  to  all  pure 
religion,  and  generally  admitted  to  be  so,  but  which  were 
not  revealed  elsewhere.  Our  religion,  and  some  other 
religions  extant  at  the  present  day,  rest  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God.  The  Christian  creeds, 
like  the  Scriptures  as  Christians  in  general  hold  them, 
teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  but  this 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  presupposes,  and  is  based 
and  built  upon,  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity.  When  we 
proceed  to  ask  how,  when  this  unity  has  been  so  largely, 
nay,  in  ancient  times  so  prevailingly  denied  and  set 
aside,  it  has  been  kept  alive  in  the  world  during  the 
long  period  of  nearly  universal  darkness,  and  safely 
handed  down  to  us,  the  reply  is  that  it  was  upheld, 
and  upheld  exclusively,  as  a  living  article  of  religious 
obligation,  in  one  small  country,  among  one  small  and 
generally  disparaged  people  ;  and  that  the  country  and 
the  people  were  those  who  received  this  precious  truth 
and  preserved  it  in  and  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament.  They  not  only  teach  the  unity  of  God, 
but  teach  it  with  an  emphasis,  persistency  and  authority 
such  as  no  other  work  of  any  period  or  authorship  has 
equalled  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  on 
this  subject  is  really  no  more  than  an  echo  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old.  If  this  truth  was  thus  taught  by 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  Law,  and  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Psalms,  to  the  Hebrew  race,  and  that  through  a 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  363 


long  course  of  centuries,  while  it  was  everywhere  else 
darkened  or  denied,  we  have  only  to  take  further  into 
view  the  generally  acknowledged  fact,  that  it  supplies 
the  only  foundation  on  which  the  fabric  of  a  pure 
religion  can  be  reared,  in  order  to  make  good,  as  among 
the  old  sacred  books  of  the  world,  not  only  the  superior, 
but,  so  far  as  regards  the  very  heart,  root,  and  centre  of 
Divine  truth,  the  exclusive  claim  of  the  Bible. 

I  do  not  indeed  deny,  and  shall  presently  insist,  that 
authentic  traces  of  this  majestic  truth  are  to  be  found 
elsewhere  in  old  books  and  old  religions ;  but  it  is  amid 
a  mass  of  evil  and  ruinous  accretions,  which  grew  pro¬ 
gressively  around  it,  and,  as  a  rule,  but  too  rapidly  stifled 
and  suppressed  it.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  parallel 
and  even  more  undeniable  fact,  that  it  is  in  all  these 
cases  traced  rather  than  recorded,  recorded  rather  than 
taught,  and  if  taught  at  all,  taught  with  such  lack  of 
perspicuity,  persistency,  and  authority  as  to  deprive  it  of 
all  motive  power,  to  shut  it  out  from  practical  religion, 
and  to  leave  it,  through  those  long  and  weary  centuries, 
in  the  cold  sleep  of  oblivion  or  the  storm  of  overwhelm¬ 
ing  denial. 

The  Koran,  as  all  are  aware,  has,  outside  the  Hebrew 
and  Christian  precinct,  appropriated  the  pure  tradition 
on  which  were  built  the  Bible’s  first  beginnings,  and 
taught  the  unity  of  God,  with  abundant  ATigour,  to  a 
considerable  section  of  mankind,  reaching  probably  at 
the  present  day  to  between  one  and  two  hundred 
millions.  But  the  recency  of  its  date  places  the  Koran 
wholly  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  argument ; 
except  in  so  far  as  the  derivative  character  of  the 
doctrine,  as  standing  upon  its  pages,  helps  to  illus¬ 
trate  the  authority  of  the  august  source  from  which  it 


364  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


proceeded.  And  it  remains  true  that  the  vitality  of 
religion,  as  bound  up  with  this  doctrine,  hung  for  very 
many  centuries  suspended  upon  the  single  cord  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Christian  Scriptures. 

And  yet  we  are  still  told  (I  quote  from  one  of  the 
most  recent  American  publications)  that  the  Bible 
belongs  essentially  to  the  same  family  as  the  remainder 
of  the  Eastern  books  reputed  to  be  sacred,  that  it  is  one 
of  many  revelations  contained  in  them  ;  “on  the  whole 
the  highest  and  best  that  the  ancient  world  produced.” 
These  books,  then,  it  would  seem,  are  like  children  in  a 
class  at  school ;  and  the  Bible,  on  account  of  its  merits, 
is  promoted  to  the  head  of  the  class.”' 

It  is  not  the  Bible  that  produced  religion  and  morals, 
but  religion  and  morals  that  produced  the  Bible. |  It 

is,  then,  as  much  as  any  other,  a  properly  human  com¬ 
position  in  its  matter  and  in  its  authority.  Yet  this  same 
author  frankly  admits  that  c  £  the  Bible  is  the  parent  of 
monotheism  in  the  world,  so  far  as  a  book  can  produce 

it. ”  +  And  of  course  we  agree  that  the  monotheism  of 
the  written  Bible  is  founded  upon  a  prior  communica¬ 
tion  of  Divine  truth  to  mankind.  It  is  strange,  indeed, 
if  the  exclusive  guardianship  of  the  great  articulus 
stantis  ant  cadentis  religionis ,  which  died  out  in  every 
other  country,  was  a  charge  only  to  be  acknowledged 
in  a  shuffle  of  precedence  !  It  is  supremacy,  not  pre¬ 
cedence,  that  we  ask  for  the  Bible ;  it  is  contrast,  as 
well  as  resemblance,  that  we  must  feel  compelled  to 
insist  on.  The  Bible  is  stamped  with  specialty  of  origin, 

*  ‘The  Bible;  its  Origin,  Growth,  and  Character,  and  its  Place 
among  the  Sacred  Books  of  the  World.’  By  J.  T.  Sunderland,  New 
York,  1893,  p.  249. 

f  Ibid.  p.  250. 


X  Ibid.  p.  258. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  365 


and  an  immeasurable  distance  separates  it  from  all 
competitors. 

It  may  be  right  to  notice  in  this  place  that  there  is  a 
practice,  somewhat  usual  in  the  Bible  and  rarely  cha¬ 
racteristic,  I  apprehend,  of  the  other  ancient  books  of 
religion,  which  pledges  the  personal  veracity  of  the 
authors  to  the  direct  and  definite  character  of  the  revela¬ 
tion  imparted.'"'  It  is  not  adopted  in  the  historical 
parts  of  Scripture.  But  where  laws  are  to  be  delivered, 
it  is  largely  used  by  Moses  with  some  difference  of 
degree:  commonly  “the  Lord  said  unto  Moses;”  or 
more  particularly,  as  in  Exod.  xx.  1,  “  and  God  spake 
all  these  words,  saying ;  ”  or,  as  in  Deut.  xxix.  1 , 
“  These  are  the  words  of  the  covenant,  which  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of  Israel.” 
In  the  utterances  of  the  prophets,  from  first  to  last,  it  is 
so  habitual,  with  diversities  of  expression  which  do  not 
affect  the  substance,  that  it  is  needless  to  cite  them  in 
particular,  from  “  the  vision  of  Isaiah,”  f  to  “  the  burden 
of  Malachi.”  J  And  St.  Paul,  in  his  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  helps  us  to  comprehend  the  character  of 
inspiration,  and  its  distinctness  in  his  own  case  from 
that  more  general  guidance  which  is  given  to  the 
spiritually  minded  man,  when  he  writes  as  follows  : 
first,  §  u  unto  the  married  I  command,  yet  not  I,  but  the 
Lord ;  ”  and  then,  ||  “  to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord.” 
These  are  assertions  of  a  very  serious  and  practical 
character  ;  they  show  us  that  oftentimes  the  very  words, 
and  not  merely  the  general  purport,  were  in  question  ; 


*  Claimed,  however,  by  Zoroaster.  Rawlinson,  ‘  Ancient  Religions,  ’ 
p.  95. 

f  Isa.  i.  %  Mai.  i.  §  1  Cor.  vii.  10.  ||  1  Cor.  vii.12. 


366  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


and  they  appear,  in  the  subject  matter  which  they 
legitimately  embrace,  to  show  the  singular  earnestness 
with  which  the  work  of  the  sacred  writers  was  pursued  ;  if 
they  do  not,  indeed,  oblige  us  to  make  our  choice  between 
acknowledging  inspiration  and  charging  imposture. 

Let  it  not,  however,  be  supposed,  that  while  I  dwell 
upon  the  contrast  in  dignity  and  title  between  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  ancient  books  of  the  East, 
I  intend  to  speak  of  those  more  promiscuous  works,  or 
of  the  religious  developments  gathered  round  them,  with 
sweeping  disrespect.  On  the  contrary,  both  the  religions 
and  the  records  have  their  value ;  and  I  am  cognizant 
of  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  the  Achaians,  or  earliest 
historic  Greeks,  the  religion  embodied  interesting  and 
valuable  elements  of  the  old  traditions  preserved  for  us 
among  the  Hebrews,  although  they  had  none  of  the 
advantage  to  be  derived  from  the  support  of  written  or 
regular  records.  Both  in  subject  matter  and  in  the  evi¬ 
dence  they  afford  of  drawing  from  a  higher  than  any  human 
source,  these  ancient  remarks  offer  to  us  particulars  of 
very  high  interest  from  more  than  one  point  of  view. 

Sometimes  we  may  recognize,  as  in  the  Assyrian  or 
Vedic  hymns,  approximations,  if  with  long  intervals 
unfilled  between,  to  those  wonderful  developments  of 
the  inward  life  of  devotion  with  which  the  Scriptures, 
and  beyond  all  other  ancient  books  the  Psalms,  are 
so  intensely  charged.  These  impressions,  outside  the 
Scriptures,  have  a  double  value  :  first,  in  the  testimony 
which  they  render  to  the  principles  of  piety,  and  secondly, 
in  the  exhibition  they  afford  of  the  scarcely  measurable 
superiority  of  the  Hebrew  records  as  patterns  and  guides 
in  the  school  of  religious  experience. 

Still  more  remarkable  may  be  considered  the  moral 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  367 

teachings  of  the  Chinese  philosopher  Confucius.  They 
were  delivered  at  a  very  early  date,  and  this  may  have 
been  one  of  the  reasons  of  their  purity  and  elevation. 
We  find  the  American  writer  already  quoted  recording 
with  a  kind  of  glee  that  Confucius  taught  the  golden 
rule  centuries  before  Christ.*  A  writer  by  no  means 
favourable  to  negation  gives  us  the  assurance  j*  that  the 
attempt  of  a  religious  party  to  represent  the  moral 
teachings  of  this  great  man  as  standing  in  close  conflict 
with  Christianity  is  much  to  be  deplored.  The  golden 
rule,  however,  does  not  come  up  to  the  full  height  of 
the  “second”  commandment,  “Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself.”  But  we  ought  to  be  thankful 
wherever  we  find  teaching  so  nearly  approaching  that. 
Again :  the  Egyptian  ‘  Book  of  the  Dead  ’  vividly 
depicts  the  condition  of  man  after  his  demise,  and  the 
judgment  to  be  passed  upon  him.  Although  the  religion 
with  which  this  remarkable  work  was  connected  be 
immersed  in  polytheism,  and  false  tradition  enters  into 
the  delineation  of  details,  yet  on  the  other  hand  it  gives 
a  more  systematic  and  particular  expression  to  the  great 
truth  of  the  soul’s  survival  than  we  find  set  forth  in 
the  Hebrew  books ;  and  it  is  also  remarkably  sustained 
by  the  early  records  of  the  Zoroastrian  system.  All 
this  we  accept  with  lively  thankfulness,  and,  as  I  shall 
shortly  explain,  this  is  done  from  a  double  point  of  view. 

Take  again  the  case  of  the  Hindoo  cosmogony. 
Deficient  as  it  is  in  the  nobler  elements  preserved  for  us 
in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  and  even  absurd  in  its  particulars, 
one  of  its  points  may  be  compared  to  a  ray  of  light 


*  Sunderland,  pp.  26,  27. 

f  Justino,  ‘The  Jesuits  in  China,’  p.  89,  also  pp.  13,  14. 


368  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

shining  from  the  far  interior  through  the  mazes  of  an 
interminable  cavern.  Its  golden  egg  is  said  to  have 
been  the  home  of  Brahma  before  his  birth.  He  lay 
there  for  a  divine  year.  And  a  day  and  night  of 
Brahma’s  year  are  equal  to  8620  millions  of  ordinary 
years.  Ts  it  not  within  the  verge  of  possibility  that 
this  vast  extension  of  time  may  convey  to  us,  even  if 
in  gross  caricature,  some  trace  of  the  fact  that  the  pre¬ 
human  periods  of  cosmic  and  mundane  preparation 
extended  over  vast  spaces  of  time  ? 

And  finally  let  us  refer  to  the  central  truth  of  the 
unity  'of  God.  In  the  work  which  I  have  cited  on 
‘The  Jesuits  in  China’  we  find  that  the  Chinese  were 
required  by  the  Confucian  religion  to  pay  reverent 
worship  to  Tien."'  This  word  Tien  was  interpreted  at 
Borne  to  mean  the  heaven.  But  in  China  it  was  held 
that  the  emperor  had  supreme  hermeneutic  power,  and 
he  steadily  maintained  that  the  phrase  meant  not  heaven 
but  the  Lord  of  Heaven.  |  And  further  it  appears  that, 
in  all  or  some  of  these  sacred  books,  as  we  ascend  toward 
their  oldest  traditions,  we  come  more  nearly  into  view  of 
a  primeval  monotheism.  This  was  held  by  Ricci,  the 
Jesuit  missionary,  to  be  remarkably  the  case  in  the 
ancient  religious  system  of  China.  J  So  likewise  in 
the  Gathas  of  Persia, §  where  religion  was  degraded  in 
later  times  not  only  by  the  full  development  of  dualism, 


*  ‘Laws  of  Manon,’  bk.  i.  secs.  9  and  72,  edited  by  G.  Pauthier, 
Orleans,  1875. 

f  ‘The  Jesuits  in  China,’  London,  1894,  pp.  24,  27,  first  edition. 

X  Ibid.  p.  13. 

§  Kawlinson,  ‘Ancient  Religions,’ p.  97,  and  ‘Ancient  Monarchies 
III.,’  pp.  104,  105  ;  and  particularly,  Haug,  ‘  Essays  on  the  Parsecs,’ 
p.  149. 


introduction  to  sheppard’s  pictorial  bible.  369 


but  by  the  introduction  of  a  multitude  of  gods  and  of 
elemental  worship.  Thus,  again,  we  have,  in  comparing 
the  Persian  books  with  the  Hebrew  records,  the  double 
witness  :  first  of  concurrence,  and  secondly  of  marked 
inferiority.  But  apart  altogether  from  the  support  given 
to  the  early  Scriptures  by  resemblance  or  contrast  of 
contents,  is  that  which  accrues,  from  the  same  sources , 
to  their  authority.  The  pure  doctrines  of  religion,  and 
especially  monotheism,  which  the  speculators  of  to-day 
largely  represent  as  the  laborious  attainment  effected, 
after  many  efforts  and  through  many  stages,  by  the 
agency  of  human  thought,  is  referred  by  the  traditional 
belief  of  Christians  to  a  primeval  revelation.  This  belief 
might  he  sufficiently  sustained,  even  did  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  stand  alone  in  the  world.  But  the  concurrent 
voice  of  many  witnesses  further  serves  to  raise  this 
contention  to  the  rank  of  an  historical  and  moral 
certainty. 


III. 

For  these  Eastern  books  severally  record  the  most 
ancient  religious  traditions  of  the  respective  countries 
where  they  were  in  vogue.  There  is  no  difficulty  in 
accounting  for  their  diversities.  But  how  are  we  to 
account  for  their  points  of  agreement  ;  of  agreement 
in  very  high  matters ;  of  agreement  which  in  sub¬ 
sequent  times,  instead  of  being  extended,  very  largely 
disappeared  ? 

Here  the  Hebrew  book  comes  in  to  our  aid ;  and  on 
this  occasion  not  so  much  in  a  transcendental  fashion, 
as  by  supplying  a  rational  and  historical  solution  to  an 
interesting  problem. 


370  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

It  was  obviously  to  be  expected,  if  these  nations  had 
a  common  origin,  if  they  were  distributed  over  the  world 
from  a  common  centre,  that  the  religious  traditions 
which  they  have  severally  first  placed  upon  record  would 
bear  traces  of  the  time  when  they  all  had  one  seat,  and 
(if  so  it  had  been)  one  speech.  I  shall  notice  later  on 
what  linguistic  and  ethnographical  research  have  told 
and  are  telling  us  on  these  subjects.  But  the  Bible  had 
told  it  to  us  long  before. 

Here  again  it  was  among  the  Hebrews,  and  among 
the  Hebrews  alone,  that  any  available  and  particular 
record  of  the  primitive  condition  of  mankind  was  pre¬ 
served.  In  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis  we  are  informed 
how  most  if  not  all  the  races  among  whom  the  most 
interesting  records  of  ancient  religion  are  preserved, 
sprang  from  the  same  ancestry  as  the  Hebrews,  and 
spoke  with  them  a  common  speech.*  The  fact  of  a  great 
threefold  division  is  established.  Many  even  of  the 
names  can  be  traced,  such  as  those  of  the  Medes  (so 
much  associated  in  religion  and  history  with  the  Per¬ 
sians),  the  Egyptians,  and  the  Assyrians.  Testimony  from 
other  sources,  as  to  race  and  language,  brings  the  Indian 
people  within  our  view ;  and  further  developments  may 
come  to  include  China.  Although  the  Greeks  have  no 
sacred  books,  properly  so  called,  it  is  not  the  less  true 
that  in  their  most  ancient  religious  traditions  they  have 
transmitted  to  us  many  points  of  marked  resemblance 
to  the  traditions  recorded  in  Scripture.  Of  all  the  races 
in  question  the  Hebrews  alone  have  preserved  what 
may  be  termed  a  history  of  primeval  man.  Hoes  not 
that  history,  though  it  has  disappeared  from  other 


*  Gen.  x.  11. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  371 

channels,  derive  much  access  of  credit  from  the  con¬ 
firmation  given  by  the  Eastern  books  in  other  particulars 
to  the  Hebrew  records  ?  Is  it  not  a  moral  certainty 
that,  when  the  several  races  came  to  place  upon  record 
the  oldest  religious  traditions  which  they  possessed,  the 
record  must  have  retained  material  derived  from  the 
stock  common  to  them  all  before  the  dispersion  ?  It 
seems  impossible  that  while  one  race  conserved  these 
traditions  in  an  unbroken  line,  all  others  should  at  once 
have  lost  all  memory  of  them.  It  appears  then  that, 
so  far  as  their  common  materials  are  concerned,  all 
these  books  drew  from  one  fountain  head  ;  and  that  was 
a  source  where  the  doctrine  of  primitive  and  consecu¬ 
tive  revelation  from  God  Himself  to  the  patriarchal  line 
is  consistently  and  plainly  declared.  Regarded  in  this 
light,  the  curious  and  precious  elements  found  in  the 
Eastern  books  plainly  show  that  the  Hebrew  traditions 
were  not  the  particular  classic  of  the  Hebrews,  but  the 
best  and  most  authentic  representation  of  a  common 
original ;  and  greatly  corroborate  the  belief  that  that 
original  was  Divine. 

The  Assyrian  tablets  have  opened  to  us  separate 
traditions  of  the  Creation  and  the  Flood  in  forms  of 
very  old  date,  which  powerfully  reinforce  all  these  con¬ 
siderations.  There  is  no  doubt  of  the  relationship 
between  the  narratives  drawn  from  the  tablets  and  the 
records  of  Genesis  ;  while  a  vast  moral  inferiority  in  the 
more  precious  of  the  two,  that  relating  to  the  Creation, 
further  shows  how  greatly  our  race  had  to  suffer  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  it  was  cut  off  from  the  higher  opportunities 
of  learning  in  the  most  authentic  manner  the  Divine 
lessons  of  knowledge  as  well  as  of  life. 

Everything  tends  then  to  confirm  us  in  the  belief 


372  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

that,  in  the  day  when  the  human  race  was  undergoing 
the  first  experiences  of  its  infancy,  the  guiding  hand 
and  the  audible  voice  of  the  Universal  Father  were  made 
freely  available  to  direct  its  faltering  and  wayward 
march. 

I  know  of  no  reason,  however,  why  we  should  not 
proceed  one  step  farther  with  respect  to  these  sacred 
books*  of  the  East.  If  there  are  particular  cases  in 
which  any  one  of  them  brings  into  view,  or  into  clearer 
view,  any  matter  on  which  the  Hebrew  tradition  is 
silent  or  less  clear,  why  should  we  hesitate  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  that,  within  these  limits,  such  books  are  dis¬ 
charging  an  office  specifically  their  own,  and  intrusted  to 
them  by  providential  wisdom.  It  might  be  allowable 
to  instance  the  developments  as  to  a  future  life  in  the 
Egyptian  and  Persian  records.  But  it  is  one  thing  to 
make  this  avowal ;  it  is  quite  another  to  attempt  com¬ 
paring  them  generally  with  the  Bible,  while  the  glaring 
fact  remains  that,  after  every  fair  allowance,  they 
provide  us  neither  with  the  record  of  our  creation,  nor 
with  the  hope  or  the  plan  of  our  redemption. 

In  considering,  however,  the  relations  between  the 
Bible  and  the  older  sacred  books,  we  should  beware  of 
being  drawn  into  captious  debate  on  questions  of  words. 
We  may  be  asked  whether  the  prerogative  we  claim 
for  the  Bible  is  a  difference  in  kind,  or  whether  we  are 
content  with  the  admission  of  a  superiority  in  degree. 
Now,  a  distinction  between  these  two  is  in  common  use, 
and  reasonably  so.  Yet  it  may  be  true  that  this  common 
use  is  founded  more  in  practical  good  sense  and  utility 
than  in  any  abstract  and  absolute  conception  of  the 
mind.  Let  us  seek  for  illustrations.  Does  a  good  man 
differ  from  a  bad  man,  commonly  so  called,  in  kind,  or 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  373 

only  in  degree  ?  The  general  conscience  would  revolt 
against  the  proposition  that  Alexander  VI.  (Borgia) 
differed  from  Savonarola,  whom  he  burned,  only  in 
degree.  By  general  consent,  such  differences  are  spoken 
of  as  differences  in  kind.  Again,  is  the  difference 
between  day  and  night  a  difference  of  kind,  or  only  of 
degree?  The  general  voice  would  reply  that  it  is  of 
kind.  Yet,  upon  examination  of  the  matter,  it  would 
be  found  that  the  difference  was  one  only  of  degree. 
And  in  the  former  case  of  the  good  man  and  the  bad, 
it  might  be  difficult  to  avoid  dispute  on  behalf  of  a 
similar  conclusion,  at  least  until  a  day  should  arrive 
when  the  tares  are  to  be  severed  from  the  wheat. 

An  explanation  may  perhaps  be  sufficiently  supplied 
as  follows.  Evidently  mere  differences  of  quantity  are 
not  always  taken,  even  when  enormous,  to  be  differences 
of  kind.  Twelve  hundred,  or  twelve  thousand,  millions, 
evidently  differ  from  a  simple  dozen  of  units  to  an 
extent  which  even  bewilders  the  thinking  faculty,  and 
may  well  be  termed  immeasurable.  Yet  it  is  at  once 
seen  that  the  difference  of  the  two  is  one  only  of  degree, 
because  there  is  no  change  of  quality  and  character 
between  the  trifling  and  the  enormous  numeral.  But 
when  quality  and  character,  when  influence  and  power, 
are  so  altered  as  to  make  the  operation  in  human  affairs 
of  the  two  things  compared  fundamentally  different 
and  practically  opposed,  then  we  reasonably  decline  to 
describe  the  difference  as  if  it  were  of  quantity  alone. 
So,  in  material  things,  differences  in  the  percentages  of 
different  ingredients  may  tell  upon  what  we  term  the 
essence ;  and  we  are  perfectly  warranted,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  rules  of  kinship  as  to  some  important  points,  in 
describing  the  difference  between  the  Scriptures  and 


374  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

these  other  books  as  a  difference  in  kind,  and  not  only 
in  degree. 

Before  finally  quitting  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to 
the  Eastern  sacred  books,  I  will  notice  another  point  of 
much  interest,  to  which  attention  has  been  recently 
called  by  Dr.  Wright.*  We  depend  for  our  knowledge 
of  the  Bible,  except  in  the  case  of  a  very  few  who  are 
Hebrew  scholars,  upon  translations.  And,  evidently,  so 
it  must  continue  to  be  for  an  indefinite  period  and 
throughout  the  world.  But  the  Bible  in  a  translated 
form  seems  not  sensibly  to  lose  its  power.  In  Palestine, 
the  Septuagint  competed  with  the  original  Hebrew.  In 
the  English  tongue,  the  Authorised  Version  bears,  and 
has  borne  for  centuries,  the  character  of  a  powerful  and 
splendid  original.  It  has  greatly  contributed  both  to 
mould  and  to  fix  the  form  of  the  language.  In  Germany 
we  have  a  somewhat  similar  account  of  Luther’s  Bible. 
In  general,  even  a  good  translation  is  like  the  copy  of 
some  great  picture.  It  does  not  readily  go  home  to 
heart  and  mind.  Yet  who  has  ever  felt,  or  has  ever 
heard  of  any  one  who  felt,  either  in  reading  the  English 
or  in  other  translations  of  the  Bible,  the  comparative 
tameness  and  inefficiency  which  commonly  attach  to 
a  change  of  vehicle  between  one  tongue  and  another  ? 
Is  it  believed  that  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  in  English 
have  seriously  lost  by  submitting  themselves  to  be 
represented  in  a  version  ?  At  least  it  may  be  said  with 
confidence  that  there  are  no  grander  passages  in  all 
English  prose  than  some  of  the  passages  of  those  trans¬ 
lated  Epistles.  Such  is  the  case  of  the  Bible  in  its 
foreign  dress.  I  am  not  competent  to  pronounce  that  it 


*  Bible  Society’s  Reporter ,  December,  1893,  p.  191. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  RITRPPARD’s  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  375 

loses  nothing.  But  it  retains  all  its  power  to  pierce  the 
thoughts  of  the  heart,  it  still  remains  sharper  than  a 
two-edged  sword,  it  still  divides  bone  and  marrow.  It 
does  its  work.  We  turn  to  the  other  Eastern  books — 
what  a  contrast  they  present  !  Certainly  the  same 
opportunities  have  not  been  afforded  them  of  operating 
through  a  variety  of  tongues  which  have  been  given  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  Confucius  and  the  Koran  were 
translated  into  Latin  in  the  seventeenth  century  ;  and 
in  English  they  have  been  accessible  for  more  than  one 
generation.  They  each  assumed  a  German  dress  more 
than  a  century  ago.  The  presentation  of  these  books  in 
the  mass  to  the  modern  world  is  of  course  too  recent  to 
be  dwelt  upon.  But  the  earlier  facts  show  that,  had 
these  books  been  gifted  with  any  of  that  energetic  vitality 
which  belongs  to  the  Bible,  a  beginning  of  its  manifesta¬ 
tion  would  long  ago  have  been  made ;  whereas  there  is 
not  a  sign  that  any  one  of  them  is  likely  to  exercise, 
beyond  its  own  traditional  borders,  any  sensible  or 
widespread  influence.  They  appear  to  sink  into  a  dead 
letter.  It  is  a  sublime  prerogative  of  the  Holy  Bible 
thus  to  reverse  the  curse  of  Babel ;  and  by  supplying 
the  entire  family  of  man  with  a  medium  both  for  their 
profoundest  thoughts  and  for  their  most  vivid  sym¬ 
pathies  which  is  alike  available  for  all,  once  more,  in  a 
certain  and  that  no  mean  sense,  so  far,  that  is  to  say,  as 
the  entire  issued  work  of  language  is  concerned,  to 
make  the  whole  earth  to  be  of  one  speech. '' 


*  Gen.  xi.  3. 


376  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

IV. 

I  next  proceed  to  bring  together  in  a  few  words  some 
instances  selected  from  the  signal  confirmations  which 
the  Holy  Scriptures  have  received  during  the  present 
century,  through  the  progress  of  science  and  research. 
Every  lover  of  truth  must  heartily  desire  their  further 
advances  on  the  simple  and  paramount  ground  of 
allegiance  to  truth.  But  we  may  also,  from  reviewing 
what  has  already  happened,  entertain  rather  sanguine 
anticipations  as  to  the  probable  effect  of  new  discoveries 
and  fuller  maturity  of  speculation  in  supplying  further 
confirmations  of  the  genera]  trustworthiness  of  the 
early  books  of  Scripture. 

Firstly.  The  discovery  of  the  Egyptian  monuments, 
together  with  Egyptian  research  in  other  forms,  has,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  works  of  Brugsch  and  other  lead¬ 
ing  students,  completely  established  the  historical  truth 
of  the  Mosaic  record  as  to  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites 
in  Egypt,  their  forced  labour  there,  and  their  flight 
therefrom. 

Secondly.  Some  sixty  years  back,  Dr.  Whewell,  in 
his  Bridgewater  Treatise,  spoke  with  favour  but  with 
diffidence  of  the  great  theory  of  Laplace  known  as  the 
nebular  or  rotary  theory.  During  the  intervening 
period  it  has  won  extensive  acceptance  in  the  scientific 
world,  and  appears,  if  not  treated  as  a  certainty,  at 
least  to  hold  the  field  without  a  present  rival.  It  is  in 
singular  conformity  with  the  cosmological  account  given 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  to  which  I  shall  shortly 
return. 

Thirdly.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  linguistic  study, 
especially  as  to  the  tongues  of  the  races  principally 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  377 


treated  of  in  the  Bible,  has  traced  them  to  a  single 
root-speech,  and  to  a  single  region,  in  remarkable 
correspondence  with  the  statements  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis. 

Fourthly.  At  the  same  time,  and  by  a  parallel 
movement,  ethnological  science  has  taken  into  view  the 
dispersion  and  distribution  of  the  human  family, 
recorded  in  Genesis  (chap.  x.).  Tracing  the  relations 
between  the  peoples  and  eponymists  there  enumerated, 
and  the  eventual  settlement  of  the  great  triform  con¬ 
tinent  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  it  has  found  in  the 
chapter  a  striking  correspondence  with  the  leading  facts 
of  that  ethnography.  As  an  historical  document,  the 
chapter  stands  without  a  peer  among  archaic  monu¬ 
ments. 

Fifthly.  The  discovery,  in  our  own  day,  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  in  actual  use  among  certain 
descendants  of  that  hybrid  people,  appears  to  place 
beyond  doubt,  not,  of  course,  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  books  of  the  Torah  as  they  stand,  but  their  public 
use  in  their  present  general  form,  before  the  severance, 
in  the  tenth  century  b.c.,  of  the  northern  from  the 
southern  kingdom.  For  the  subsequent  rivalry  and 
frequent  enmity  of  the  countries  would  surely  have  led 
to  the  exposure  of  any  endeavour  in  either  of  them  by 
priests  or  others  to  falsify  their  general  tenour. 

Sixthly.  It  seems  to  be  admitted  that  recent  research 
in  the  Holy  Land,  especially  the  survey  by  the  British 
Royal  Engineers,  have  confirmed  even  minutely  the 
statements  of  the  Pentateuch  as  to  cities  on  the  east  of 
Jordan,  whose  existence  the  survey  brought  to  light. 

Seventhly,  and  lastly.  The  records  of  the  Creation 
and  the  Flood  contained  in  the  Assyrian  tablets  give 


378  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

strong  support  to  the  Biblical  narratives.  The  Creation 
story  indeed  loses  that  which  in  Genesis  is  its  crowning 
glory,  namely,  the  promulgation  of  the  great  doctrine 
of  Creation.  It  also  has  a  large  admixture  of  inferior 
elements  ;  and  yet  not  sufficient  to  efface  the  undeniable 
marks  of  a  kindred  origin  for  the  two.  Both  the 
Assyrian  narratives  carry  certain  marks  of  having  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  same  source  with  those  of  the  Bible. 
And  as  they  purport  to  be  of  a  date  approaching  four 
thousand  years  before  the  Advent,  they  carry  us  up  to 
a  point  nearer  to  the  origin  of  our  race  than  had  before 
been  historically  attained.  Belonging  to  a  series,  they 
have  greater  weight  than  could  have  attached  to  them 
as  isolated  narratives  floating  singly  on  the  sea  of  time. 

In  the  case  of  the  Deluge,  there  are  particulars  on 
which  a  question  may  legitimately  be  raised  as  to  the 
comparative  accuracy  of  the  two  relations.  This  is 
a  matter  of  small,  if  indeed  of  any  consequence  in  com¬ 
parison  with  the  confirmation  furnished  to  what  we 
must  regard  as  the  essential  purport  of  the  tradition. 
That  is  to  say,  that  since  the  appearance  of  man  upon 
the  earth  there  has  been  a  great  penal  judgment  inflicted 
upon  the  race  in  its  Babylonian  seat  or  in  some  wider 
range,  for  its  sinfulness,  by  a  terrible  invasion  of  water, 
from  which  only  a  handful  are  known  or  believed  to 
have  escaped.  The  Creation  legend,  as  has  been  said, 
proclaims  itself  as  having  departed  sooner,  and  travelled 
far  more  widely,  from  the  precious  original. 

V. 

It  has  now  become  almost  a  matter  of  course,  in  any 
statement,  however  cursory,  which  deals  with  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  at  large,  to  notice  that  great  chapter,  the  first 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  370 


chapter  of  Genesis.  It  was  long  a  favourite  subject 
of  attack,  and  defenders  came  to  be  somewhat  dis¬ 
heartened  and  intimidated.  But  there  has  grown  up 
in  some,  I  trust  in  many  minds,  a  conviction  that  this 
Chapter  is  a  great  fortress  of  the  Scriptures,  not  an  open 
passage  through  which  they  may  be  advantageously 
assailed.  We  should  therefore  accept  with  satisfaction 
every  proper  occasion  for  noticing,  however  briefly,  its 
main  characteristics. 

And  at  the  very  outset  we  ought  to  cast  aside  the 
poor  and  artificial  shelter  which  some  have  sought  in 
broadly  distinguishing  between  spiritual  matters  and 
matters  physical,  in  which  last  it  is  said  it  was  not 
the  design  of  Scripture  to  furnish  us  with  an  education. 
Nor  is  it.  But  spiritual  facts  may  have  a  physical 
side,  and  facts  physical  a  spiritual  side  ;  nor  can  a  sharp 
or  defensible  line  be  drawn  between  them.  The  Ascen¬ 
sion,  the  Resurrection,  even  the  Incarnation  of  Christ, 
involved  strongly  physical  elements,  and  the  plea  of 
defence  is  one  fatal  to  their  authority.  Even  so  the 
announcement  of  Creation  in  this  great  chapter,  to  men¬ 
tion  nothing  else,  is  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  pregnant 
moral  facts  in  the  whole  Bible.  Renouncing  all  subter¬ 
fuge,  let  us  boldly  point  out  the  superlative  claims  and 
the  hardly  measurable  value  of  the  chapter.  Each  lead¬ 
ing  point  must,  however,  be  dismissed  in  a  few  words.* 

Firstly.  The  doctrine  of  Creation,  that  is,  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  matter  without  any  material  antecedent, 
is  set  in  the  very  forefront  of  the  Chapter.  And  here, 


*  The  main  considerations  associated  with  Gen.  i.-ii.  4  are  more 
fully  treated  in  my  small  work,  ‘The  Impregnable  Rock  of  Holy 
Scripture’  (Revised  Edition,  1892). 


380  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

as  in  the  case  of  monotheism,  the  treasure  of  this  truth 
is  enshrined  exclusively  in  the  Scriptures.  The  great 
philosophers  of  old  time  could  not  come  at  it ;  but  the 
babes  and  sucklings  (for  such  they  were  in  learning) 
of  the  Hebrew  race  had  it,  through  this  inestimable 
chapter,  for  a  household  word.  The  Psalter,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  is  saturated  with  it  from  end  to  end.  The 
creation  of  man  is  a  moral  fact  of  the  very  highest 
importance.  It  establishes  the  title  of  the  Almighty 
to  rule  over  us,  and  to  dispose  of  us,  in  a  manner  which 
without  this  doctrine  it  would  be  difficult  to  establish 
or  even  to  comprehend.  It  may  be  added  that  when 
once  the  doctrine  of  Creation  has  been  firmly  founded, 
every  such  question  as  those  recently  raised  and  now 
afloat  concerning  the  possibility  of  miracle,  seems  to 
become  trivial,  if  not  even  frivolous.  What  exercise  of 
Divine  power  can  sve  presume  to  exclude,  when  we  have 
embraced  this  sublime  and  wholly  transcendental  act  as 
an  elementary  fact  of  our  religion? 

Secondly.  The  highest  peculiarity  of  the  chapter  is, 
perhaps,  this  :  that  it  propounds,  from  man  and  to  man, 
not  as  speculation  or  mere  opinion,  but  as  authoritative 
fact,  what  happened  in  the  heavens  and  the  earth  before 
man  himself  existed.  It  has  been  said  that  either 
this  was  known  by  scientific  inquiry,  or  by  Divine 
revelation.* 

There  is  indeed  a  third  alternative,  that  of  hardy  and 
fortunate  imposture,  but  it  has  not  been  put  into  the 
field  and  need  not  be  considered.  The  idea  of  scientific 
inquiry  is  absolutely  inapplicable  to  a  period  thousands 

*  ‘  The  Bible,  Science  and  Faith,’  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Zahm,  Professor 
of  Physics  in  the  University  of  Notre  Dame,  Baltimore,  1894,  p.  30. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  38 1 


of  years  before  men  dreamt  of  examining  the  crust  of 
the  earth,  to  say  nothing  of  its  total  incongruity  with 
the  genius  and  pursuits  of  the  Hebrew  race.  What 
genius  and  culture  did  not  elsewhere  attain  could  not 
have  been  learned  by  research  in  a  case  where  genius 
and  culture  for  such  purposes  did  not  exist.  And  how 
could  science,  which  presumes  all  along  the  anterior 
existence  of  man  and  of  the  material  order,  have  had 
the  means  of  learning  how  that  material  order  originally 
came  into  being? 

Thirdly.  As  a  chapter  of  practical  and  religious 
teaching,  scientific  completeness  forms  no  part  of  its 
aim.  Its  method  is  to  use  such  language  as  shall  be 
most  communicative.  Hence  it  makes  no  definite  allu¬ 
sion  to  the  great  Reptile  age,  which  had  ceased  to  be 
represented  in  nature  such  as  it  was  presented  to 
primitive  man.  Hence,  it  speaks  of  the  moving  of  the 
spirit  on  the  waters,  where  the  elements  of  water  had 
not  yet  been  disentangled  and  consolidated,  but  by  the 
word  water  was  conveyed  effectually  the  idea  of  fluid 
with  motion,  as  distinct  from  what  is  stationary  and 
solid.*  Fishes  and  birds  are  associated  together,  but 
placed  in  their  true  order  of  priority.  Both  are  made 
anterior  to  the  land  population.  A  like  orderly 
succession  had  been  maintained  in  regard  to  diffused 
light,  to  sea  and  land,  to  the  concentration  of  light  in 
the  heavenly  bodies,  and  to  life  in  its  three  great  forms  as 
vegetable,  animal,  and  spiritual.  Evolution,  the  darling 


*  One  modern  writer  substitutes  for  the  word  water  “  a  surging 
chaos,”  and  another  “  uncompounded,  homogeneous,  gaseous  con¬ 
dition ;  ”  truly  hopeful  modes  of  conveying  instruction  to  the  mind  of 
infantine,  primeval  man. 


382  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


of  our  age,  has  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  for  its  parent 
source. 

Fourthly.  Referring  the  origin  of  man  and  animals  to 
a  common  source,  the  chapter  lays  the  foundation  of  duty 
to  the  brute  creation,  which  was  recognised  in  the  Mosaic 
law,  but  not  by  the  ancient  world  at  large.  It  elevated 
the  conception  of  duty  to  the  Most  High  by  the  special 
parentage  assigned  (in  vers.  26,  27)  to  the  human  race. 
It  exhibited  the  fond  and  elaborate  care  with  which, 
through  a  long  succession  of  stages,  God  had  prepared 
for  man,  as  a  darling  child,  the  home  in  which  he  was 
set  down,  and  which  was  declared  to  be  “  very  good.” 

Fifthly.  Objectors  have  fondly  dwelt  on  the  use  of 
the  word  day  and  its  sharp  division  into  “  the  evening  ” 
and  “  the  morning,”  as  totally  inapplicable  to  the  vast 
periods  deemed  to  have  been  required  for  the  operations 
noted  in  the  chapter.  But — • 

(1)  The  main  question  is,  whether  the  phrase  was 
well  adapted  to  convey  to  the  infant  mind  of  man  that 
division  of  the  great  work  into  successive  stages  which 
was  the  leading  idea  required  to  be  conveyed,  and  which 
as  we  see  from  the  subsequent  Scriptures  was  clearly 
conveyed  to  the  Hebrew  race,  and  to  no  other  race  on 
earth.  The  power  of  numeration,  eA7en  as  high  as  to  a 
thousand,  was  very  imperfectly  possessed  by  man  as  late 
as  the  time  of  Homer.  In  our  own  day,  large  numbers 
are  really  conventional  symbols,  rather  than  the  vehicles 
of  clear  ideas  ;  they  simply  confuse  the  mind  of  a  child) 
and  in  a  great  degree  baffle  that  of  a  grown  man. 

(2)  It  is  noteworthy  that,  contrary  to  our  common 
usage,  the  evening  precedes  instead  of  following  the 
morning.  It  seems  to  be  among  the  proofs  of  the 
commanding  influence  of  the  Chapter,  that  this  appears 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  383 


as  the  J ewish  usage  both  throughout  the  Scriptures  and 
down  to  the  present  day.  And  this  form  appears  to  be 
the  one  which,  according  to  the  theory  of  rotation,  is 
correct.  For  the  first  possible  marking  or  notation  of 
time  in  connection  with  light  would  be  its  diminution  on 
the  side  of  the  earth  turned  away  from  the  solar  mass, 
and  the  second  when  with  an  increase  of  luminosity  that 
side  again  came  to  face  the  (incipient)  sun.  It  would 
be  very  easy,  did  space  permit,  to  deal  with  any  other 
objection  which  has  been  taken  to  the  use  in  the  Mosaic 
narrative  of  a  phrase  which  has  proved  its  efficacy  for 
its  proper  purpose  by  the  results  exhibited  in  the 
literature  and  usages  of  the  Jews. 

(3)  If  we  hold  that  the  days  of  the  great  chapter  are 
not  periods  of  twenty-four  hours,  but  great  chapters  of 
action,  capable  of  overlapping,  rather  than  of  mere  time; 
this  is  not  a  denial  that  the  several  stages  might  have 
been  accomplished  in  any  number  of  our  chronic  hours, 
however  small,  had  it  so  pleased  the  Almighty  Father. 
It  is  because  the  analogy  of  nature,  which  teaches  us  His 
ordinary  method  of  operation,  points  to  the  prolongation 
of  complex  and  diversified  processes  over  considerable 
periods  of  time,  and  we  prefer  the  construction  of  the 
word  which  is  agreeable  to  such  analogy. 

(4)  It  is  a  gross  error  to  suppose  that  the  Christian 
Church  has  ever  tied  itself  to  the  opinion  which  treats 
these  days  as  days  of  twenty-four  hours.  In  the  very 
first  ages  of  the  literature  of  the  Church,  different 
teachers  and  different  schools  freely  and  without 
reproach  promulgated  different  interpretations.  This  has 
been  well  shown  in  America  during  the  present  year,  in  the 
work  of  Professor  Zahm  already  quoted  (chaps,  ii.-iv.). 
So  that  the  question  was  an  open  one,  and  there  never  at 


384  introduction  to  Sheppard’s  pictorial  bible. 

any  period,  I  believe,  has  been  an  attempt  at  an  authori¬ 
tative  construction  of  the  passages. 

And  now  let  us  thankfully  review  the  security  of 
the  position  which  the  Bible,  and  especially  the  great 
chapter,  holds  in  relation  to  present  or  possible  research 
and  its  results. 

Suppose  for  a  moment  that  it  were  found,  or  came  to 
be  granted,  in  the  argumentation  of  science,  that  the 
first  and  lowest  forms  of  life  had  been  evolved  from 
lifeless  matter  as  their  immediate  antecedent.  What 
statement  of  Holy  Scripture  would  be  shaken  by  the 
discovery  ?  What  would  it  prove  to  us,  except  that 
there  had  been  given  to  certain  inanimate  substances 
the  power,  when  they  were  brought  into  certain 
combinations,  of  reappearing  in  some  of  the  low  forms 
which  live,  but  without  any  of  the  worthier  prerogatives 
of  life  ?  No  conclusion  would  follow  for  reasonable 
men,  except  the  perfectly  rational  conclusion  that  the 
Almighty  had  seen  fit  to  endow  with  certain  powers  in 
particular  circumstances,  and  to  withhold  from  them  in 
all  other  circumstances,  the  material  elements  which  He 
had  created,  and  for  which  it  was  surely  for  Him  to 
determine  the  conditions  of  existence  and  of  productive 
power,  and  the  sphere  and  manner  of  their  operation. 

Or  again,  if  it  has  been  proved  (a  question  on  which 
no  opinion  need  be  given)  that  the  years  allowed  by  the 
chronology  of  Holy  Scripture  from  the  Deluge  to  the 
Advent,  or  from  the  Creation  to  the  Deluge,  are  proved 
by  the  facts  of  prehistoric  date,  which  have  been  sup¬ 
plied  through  archaeology  or  otherwise,  to  be  fewer  than 
are  required  according  to  sound  analogies  for  the  occur¬ 
rences  recorded,  in  what  respect  need  we  be  discomposed  ? 
It  has,  or  should  have  been,  notorious  to  us  all  that  the 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  385 

Hebrew  text,  the  translation  known  as  the  Septuagint, 
and  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  su}3ply  three  different 
chronologies,  as  between  which  there  are  no  materials 
for  conclusive  or  authoritative  decision.  As  they  differ 
so  that  their  figures  of  time  cannot  all  be  reconciled,  it 
is  plain  that  no  theory  of  infallibility,  however  aspiring, 
will  protect  them  from  legitimate  criticism.  And  what 
right  have  we  to  assert,  should  evidence  to  the  contrary 
be  produced,  that  the  gap  between  the  longest  and  the 
shortest  has  touched  the  extreme  limit  which,  did  we 
know  them,  might  be  supplied  by  the  facts'?  As  each 
asserts  itself  against  the  others,  so  the  actual  history 
might  vary  from  them  all,  and  establish  a  more  extended 
-perhaps  a  much  more  extended — boundary.  Or  again 
if,  while  Genesis  *  asserts  a  separate  creation  of  man, 
science  should  eventually  prove  that  man  sprang,  by 
a  countless  multitude  of  indefinitely  small  variations, 
from  a  lower,  and  even  from  the  lowest  ancestry,  the 
statement  of  the  great  chapter  would  still  remain 
undisturbed.  For  every  one  of  those  variations,  how¬ 
ever  small,  is  absolutely  separate,  in  the  points  wherein 
it  varies,  from  what  followed  and  preceded  it ;  is,  in 
fact  and  in  effect,  a  separate  creation.  And  the  fact 
that  the  variation  is  so  small  that,  taken  singly,  our  use 
may  be  not  to  reckon  it,  is  nothing  whatever  to  the 
purpose.  For  it  is  the  finiteness  of  our  faculties  which 
shuts  us  off  by  a  barrier  downward  (beyond  a  certain 
limit)  from  the  small,  as  it  shuts  us  off  by  a  barrier- 
upward  from  the  great ;  whereas,  for  Him  whose  faculties 
are  infinite,  the  small  and  the  great  are,  like  the  light 
and  the  darkness,  “  both  alike,”  and,  if  man  came  up  by 

*  Gen.  i.  26-28. 

i.  2  c 


386  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

innumerable  stages  from  a  low  origin  to  the  image  of 
God,  it  is  God  only  who  can  say,  as  He  has  said  in  other 
cases,  which  of  those  stages  may  be  worthy  to  be  noted 
with  the  distinctive  name  of  creation,  and  at  what  point 
of  the  ascent  man  could  first  be  justly  said  to  exhibit 
the  image  of  God.  Or,  once  more,  let  us  suppose  our¬ 
selves  confronted  with  the  Quaternary  or  geological 
man,  and  challenged  to  declare  whether  a  being,  if  only 
lodged  in  a  form  generally  corresponding  as  to  limbs 
and  cranium  with  our  own,  is  recognised  by  us  as 
belonging  to  that  family  of  man  which  was  made  in 
the  image  of  God.'"'  Our  answer  is  plain.  We  have  no 
means  of  knowing  what  the  geological  man  may  have 
been  in  respect  to  that  vital  condition  which  stamps  his 
nature  as  a  nature  conformable  to  the  Mosaic  descrip¬ 
tion.  When  science  supplies  us  with  those  means,  it 
will  be  time  enough  for  us  to  meet  the  challenge.  We 
shall  then  know  whether  he,  had  the  spiritual,  as  well  as 
the  animal  and  intelligent  life  ;  whether,  with  circum¬ 
stantial  resemblances,  he  was  apart  from  us  as  to 
essence,  or  whether  we  are  essentially  as  well  as  circum¬ 
stantially  one.  He  may  have  been  only  on  his  way  to 
the  condition  which  the  words  of  Scripture  so  beautifully 
describe.  Certain  animals,  as  we  know,  are  endowed 
with  high,  and  might  conceivably  be  endowed  with 
higher  intelligence.  Bishop  Butler  treats  them  as  not 
absolutely  beyond  the  possibility  of  being  raised  to  a 
level  with  ourselves.  There  might  be  beings  with 
higher  endowments  than  any  now  enjoyed  by  any 
creature  less  elevated  than  man,  and  yet  who,  notwith¬ 
standing,  might  not  be  capable  of  attaining  to  the 


*  Gen.  i.  26. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD^  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  387 

supreme  gift,  which  in  some  sense  allies  our  nature  with 
Deity.  For  example  :  Man  is  nowhere  more  clearly 
severed  from  the  lower  orders  of  the  animal  creation 
than  as  a  tool-making  animal.  A  tool-making  creature, 
in  the  form  of  a  man,  would  have  a  position  higher  than 
that  of  any  known  animal ;  but  can  we  declare  it 
impossible  that  there  might  be  such  a  creature,  who 
nevertheless  should  not  come  within  the  conditions 
which  would  declare  him  to  be  one  created  in  the  image 
of  his  Maker  ? 

I  have  dwelt  most  largely  on  the  value  of  the  great 
chapter  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  theistic  and 
Christian  faith.  But  we  may  gladly  bear  in  mind  that 
it  was  probably  given  for  purposes  still  higher  than 
those  of  any  controversy  or  contention,  however  sacred. 
While  it  taught  primitive  man  the  doctrine  of  one  God, 
it  also  powerfully  tended  to  establish  him  in  his  true 
filial  relation  to  the  great  Being  it  had  revealed.  He 
saw  around  him  an  abundant  provision  made  for  his 
subsistence,  his  comfort,  his  childlike  delights.  He 
learned  something  of  what  he  owed  to  his  Almighty 
Father,  And  if  the  great  teachings  of  this  chapter 
were  from  the  first  made  known  to  him,  they  probably 
gave  him  all  the  knowledge  which  he  had  faculties  to 
receive,  while  they  trained  and  disciplined  his  mind  for 
apprehending  more.  They  contained  not  a  word  to 
darken  the  pure  atmosphere  in  which  he  lived.  They 
exhibited  to  him  the  march  of  onward  and  upward 
progress,  which,  so  far  as  our  limited  faculties  instruct 
us,  would  seem  to  be  the  normal  condition  of  man  as  the 
highest  earthly  work  of  God.  From  this  point  of  view, 
the  chapter  might  almost  in  its  simple  sublimity  be 
termed  the  Gospel  of  Paradise. 


388  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


YI. 

There  has  been  a  disposition,  due,  it  would  appear, 
rather  to  zeal  than  to  a  prudent  estimate  of  the  position, 
which  has  led  many  to  maintain  the  absolute  accuracy 
and  truth  of  every  word  contained  in  the  book  which 
we  properly  term  the  Sacred  Volume.  But  this  like 
other  works  has  had  to  undergo  many  risks  to  which 
other  vehicles  of  human  knowledge  are  subject  when  in 
the  course  of  their  transmission.  The  earliest  traditions 
may  have  been  orally  handed  on.  When  they  passed  into 
writing,  and  afterward  into  print  (which  has  neutralised 
many  of  the  previous  risks),  the  business  of  custody  and 
of  copying  and  the  special  necessity  of  translating  a 
book  intended,  after  a  preliminary  season,  for  all  man¬ 
kind,  were  matters  such  that  an  absolute  immunity  from 
casual  errors  could  only  have  been  obtained,  in  this  or 
any  other  case,  by  a  standing  miracle.  But  such  an 
intervention  of  miracle  none  have  been  hardy  enough  to 
assert.  The  question  in  dispute  therefore  disappears, 
and  absolute  inerrability  cannot  be  maintained.  JSTot 
that  such  a  provision  might  not  have  been  made,  had 
God  in  His  wisdom  so  seen  fit.  It  would,  however,  not 
have  been  in  keeping  with  the  ordinary  conditions 
of  the  dispensations  under  which  we  live  ;  and  when  it 
is  the  sufficiency,  rather  than  the  absolute  mechanical 
perfection,  of  the  provisions  made  by  God  for  the 
attainment  of  His  purposes,  on  which  we  have  to  rely. 

In  this  case,  however,  we  are  not  left  to  the  operation 
of  mere  presumptions  for  the  determination  of  the  case. 
A Ve  have  before  us  the  broad  fact  that  there  are  before 
us  two  texts  at  least  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which 
are  rivals  in  authority.  The  one  is  in  the  original 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  389 

tongue  ;  but  the  other,  the  translation  of  the  Septuagint, 
was  made  from  manuscripts  far  older  than  any  of  those 
from  which  the  Hebrew  Bible  is  derived.  The  differ¬ 
ences  are  sometimes  irreconcilable.  But  both  authori¬ 
ties  are  cited,  apparently  with  indifference,  by  our  Lord 
and  by  His  apostles.  Where  they  differ  in  substance, 
we  cannot  suppose  the  two  to  be  equally  authentic, 
or  there  would  be  two  channels  of  infallibility  instead 
of  one,  and  these  channels  divergent  one  from  the 
other.  Here  then  we  have  the  existence  of  some  forms 
of  error,  smaller  or  greater,  established  beyond  doubt. 
Even  if  an  explanation  could  be  found  for  such  a 
conflict,  it  could  not  cover  (for  example)  the  case  of  the 
three  chronologies.  Their  principal  differences  attach 
to  the  period  between  Adam,  or  the  Creation,  and 
the  emigration  of  Abram  from  Haran.  For  this  the 
Septuagint  *  gives  a  period  of  3279  years  ;  the  Hebrew, 
2023  ;  and  the  Samaritan  text,  2324.  It  is  almost  as 
difficult  to  place  in  any  other  category  the  differences 
as  to  certain  genealogies.  Next  to  them  may  be 
specified  numerical  statements  bearing  upon  their  face 
the  highest  probability  of  an  error  of  copyists,  commonly 
by  exaggeration.  The  numbers  assigned  to  the  children 
of  Israel  when  they  quitted  Egypt  f — 600,000  J  on  foot 
that  were  men,  besides  children— may  be  quoted  as  an 
instance,  and  others  could  be  readily  supplied.  It  seems 
not  impossible  that  while  the  introduction  of  errors  in 
numerical  statements  is  peculiarly  common  and  easy 

*  Smith’s  4  Bible  Dictionary,’  Art.  44  Chronology.” 

f  Exod.  xii.  37. 

J  A  number  raised  to  over  two  millions  by  reckoning  those  males 
who  could  not  walk  and  also  the  females.  Speaker’s  4  Commentary  ’ 
in  loc,  and  4  Student’s  Bible,’  do. 


390  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 


(most  of  all  when  numerals,  as  in  Hebrew,  are  designated 
by  letters),  the  particular  direction  of  these  errors  may 
be  partly  due  to  Jewish  patriotism. 

Again,  there  are  instances  where  no  phrase  aiming  at 
scientific  accuracy  would  have  conveyed  an  intelligible 
idea,  and  an  expression  in  itself  imperfect  supplied  the 
only  vehicle  available  for  reaching  the  apprehension  of 
the  race  in  its  infancy.  Such  is  the  case  of  Gen.  i.  2, 
already  noticed.  Among  the  well-known  cases  are  those 
in  which  the  movement  of  the  sun  and  the  immobility 
of  the  earth  are  described,  and  those  which  speak  of 
corporal  organs  in  connection  with  the  Almighty. 

We  may  proceed  a  step  further  to  notice,  by  way  of 
example,  those  passages  of  the  Psalms  which,  if  literally 
and  grammatically  construed,  might  be  held  to  affirm 
a  real  existence  for  the  gods  of  the  heathen.  For  we 
are  told  that  God  “is  a  judge  among  gods  ;  ”  *  again, f 
<£  worship  him, all  ye  gods;  ”  i  and  once  more,§  u  Thou  art 
exalted  far  above  all  gods  :  ”  while  we  learn  from  other 
Psalms  that  “  the  gods  of  the  heathen  are  but  idols,” 
“  the  work  of  men’s  hands.”  || 

Reasons  have  already  been  given  why  we  should 
decline  on  behalf  of  such  passages  to  accept,  when  they 
will  bear  it,  the  unsafe  excuse,  not  always  true,  as  matter 
of  dry  fact,  that  they  refer  to  such  departments  of 
knowledge  as  lie  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Scripture 
revelation.  It  is  capable  of  a  just  application,  but 
partially  and  by  no  means  universally.  Let  us  accept 
the  comparatively  few  inaccuracies  of  the  text  as  they 
stand  ;  they  make  no  sensible  deduction  either  from 

*  Ps.  lxxxii.  1.  f  Ps.  xcvii.  7. 

X  See  also  Ps.  lxxxix.  7  ;  xcvi.  4;  cxxxvi.  3  ;  cxxxviii.  1. 

§  Ps.  xcvii.  9.  ||  Ps.  xcvii.  7  ;  cxxxv.  15. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  391 

the  value  or  from  the  efficacy  of  the  Bible.  The  objector 
advances  his  principal  line  of  battle  when  he  brings 
together  from  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament  a  list  of 
acts  which,  as  he  thinks,  offend  the  moral  sense,  but 
which,  in  some  of  the  cases,  are  passed  without  censure, 
and  in  others  even  attract  emphatic  praise.  Such  are 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the  reception  by  Rahab  of  the 
spies  who  were  hostile  to  her  country,  and  the  slaughter 
of  Sisera  by  Jael ;  a  list  to  which  I  will  only  add  the 
destruction  by  Jehu  of  the  Baal  worshippers.  I  need 
not  touch  the  cases  on  which  the  Bible  passes  no 
judgment ;  and  any  notice  taken  here  of  these  grave 
matters  must  be  slight  and  insufficient.  I  pass  by  the 
case  of  Abraham  with  these  remarks  only  :  that  he,  who 
probably  had  learned  through  the  tradition  of  Enoch 
that  God  had  modes  of  removal  for  his  children  other 
than  death,  may  well  have  believed  that  some  such 
method  would  at  the  critical  moment  be  devised  for 
Isaac ;  and  that  what  is  commended  in  him  by  the 
Bible  is  not  the  intention  to  slay  his  own  son  with  his 
own  hand,  but  *  the  ready  assent  to  the  privation  he 
was  to  undergo  in  the  frustration  of  the  promise  that 
the  Messianic  line  should  descend  from  him.  But  I 
will  dwell  upon  the  case  of  Jael,  because,  although  she 
is  not  commended  among  the  witnesses  of  faith  in  the 
New  Testament,  she  is  emphatically  praised  by  Deborah 
the  prophetess ;  and  because,  on  the  other  hand,  she  is 
commonly  made  the  subject  of  the  severest  and  most 
unqualified  censure  ;  as  though,  from  the  objector’s  point 
of  view,  the  case  admitted  of  no  discussion.  The  swoop 
and  haste  of  these  judgments  perhaps  mainly  serve  to 


*  Heb.  xi.  17. 


392  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

show  with  what  laxity  questions  are  sometimes  handled, 
when  the  matter  at  issue  is  only  the  honour  of  Almighty 
God. 

It  is  urged,  however,  that  her  conduct  displayed  the 
extreme  of  violence  combined  with  the  extreme  of  deceit, 
and  with  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  hospitality,  against 
a  man  with  whom  she  and  hers,  the  house  of  Heber  the 
Kenite,  had  no  quarrel. 

This  last  is  mainly  true.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  and 
as  regards  social  duty,  was  not  the  first  social  duty  of  J ael 
rather  to  the  children  of  Israel — her  family  being  derived 
from  Jethro,  the  father-in-law  of  Moses — than  to  Sisera, 
with  whom  she  had  no  other  than  a  negative  relation? 
Was  not  Sisera  the  chief  agent  and  representative  of 
a  power  which  was  seeking  by  war  to  extirpate  or 
enslave  the  Israelites?  Did  Jael,  or  did  Sisera,  create 
the  dilemma  ?  and  what  were  the  alternatives  set  before 
her  by  the  act  of  Sisera  ?  He  demanded  shelter ;  he 
required  of  her  #  that  she  should  deny  his  presence  in 
her  house,  and  should  use  against  those  who  were  first 
entitled  to  her  sympathies  the  instrument  of  treachery 
which  she  turned  against  him.  Surely  all  the  reason 
of  the  case  was  not  on  the  side  of  this  demand  !  What 
were  the  alternatives  before  her  if  she  complied  with 
it  ?  The  victorious  Israelites  were  in  hot  pursuit ;  and 
Barak’s  path  lay  by  her  house.  As  a  lone  woman  she 
was  in  no  condition  to  refuse  his  presence  altogether. 
Had  she  denied  his  presence  as  he  required,  and  had 
her  house  been  searched,  her  life  must  obviously  have 
fallen  a  sacrifice  to  the  vengeance  of  the  victors ;  nay, 


*  Judg.  iv.  17-20. 


393 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

rather  to  their  just  resentment.  Had  they  waived  the 
search,  and  had  Sisera  in  consequence  made  good  his 
way  to  Hazor,  with  what  purpose  would  he  have  gone 
there  ?  Certainly,  and  from  his  point  of  view  justly, 
he  must  have  gone  there  still  to  tight  his  people’s  battle ; 
that  is  to  say,  again  to  carry  fire  and  sword,  at  the 
earliest  practicable  moment,  through  the  homes  of  Israel. 
Had  she  no  duty  to  her  own  flesh  and  blood  ?  none  to 
the  people  in  whose  land  she  dwelt,  and  with  whom  by 
her  husband’s  descent  she  stood  in  a  bond  of  sacred 
alliance  1  She  knew,  too,  that  Sisera  and  his  friends 
were  laid  under  the  curse,  as  inhabitants  of  Canaan, 
which  God  had  laid  upon  that  people  for  their  wicked¬ 
ness  ;  so  that  except  by  disobedience  to  God  the  Israelites 
were  under  a  general  command  to  withhold  from  them 
clemency  in  war.  I  do  not  prosecute  this  branch  of  the 
subject,  which  of  course  might  lead  to  the  assumption  that 
no  amount  of  wickedness  could  warrant  the  extinction 
of  the  nation  involved  in  it. 

Now,  I  submit  that  what  has  been  said  shows  that 
there  were  very  grave  difficulties  in  this  case  from  what¬ 
ever  point  of  view.  I  have  cited  a  statement  of  it  wholly 
adverse  to  Jael.  Let  me  put  the  case  in  her  favour. 
There  was  war — a  war  of  extermination.  When  she 
was  compelled  to  take  a  side,  she  rightly  took  the  side 
of  those  with  whom  she  had  special  ties.  She  slew  a  man, 
but  it  was  a  man  who,  more  than  any  other,  was  the 
life  and  soul  of  the  war  against  those  whom  she  made 
her  people.  She  slew  him  in  her  own  house ;  but  it 
was  not  she  who  brought  him  there.  She  sacrificed  his 
life  for  her  folk.  He  had  desired  her  to  expose  her  own 
life  for  him.  She  slew  him  with  deceit  and  falsehood. 
But  these  are  of  the  essence  of  stratagem  in  war,  and 


394  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

could  the  Israelites,  or  those  denizens  who  took  their 
part,  be  expected  to  refrain  from  them  ? 

I  think  that,  viewing  the  question  with  the  modern 
eye,  we  might  say  that  there  was  no  course  open  to 
Jael  which  was  in  all  respects  satisfactory.  Dr.  James 
Mozley,  who  stands  in  the  first  rank  of  English  theology 
for  the  present  century,  has  given  us  a  masterly  discus¬ 
sion  of  this  subject  in  the  sixth  of  his  c  Lectures  on  the 
Old  Testament.’  *  It  was  evidently  a  case  of  conflicting 
duties.  Human  life  furnishes  from  day  to  day  abundant 
examples  of  such  cases ;  and  there  are  many  of  them, 
for  which,  with  our  limited  faculties,  we  can  find  no 
satisfactory  solution.  Dr.  Mozley  observes  justly  j*  that 
with  admiration  there  must  here  be  mingled  a  certain 
repugnance ;  something  rises  up  within  us  against  the 
act.  The  same  observation  applies  to-day  in  the  more 
difficult  of  the  cases  where  conflict  of  opposing  duties 
has  arisen.  Difficulty  for  us  only  springs  up  when 
we  contemplate  the  glowing  and  unqualified  eulogy  of 
Deborah.  J  But  that  eulogy  was  pronounced  under  a 
partial  and  progressive  revelation ;  under  a  system 
where  the  Almighty,  in  that  earlier  stage  of  human 
experience,  authorised  and  enjoined  modes  of  action 
toward  public  events  which  have  never  found  a  sanctioned 
place  under  the  Christian  system.  In  this  view,  we  are 
little  concerned  with  the  case. 

Let  us  state  the  upshot  in  the  form  least  favourable 
to  our  estimate  of  the  Bible.  The  sacred  book  states 
in  bare  outline,  and  at  various  epochs  approves  certain 
acts  in  whole  or  in  part  irreconcilable,  so  far  as  we  see, 
with  the  law  of  Christian  love.  It  only  indicates,  and 


*  London,  1877. 


f  Page  150. 


X  Judg.  y.  24-26. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  395 

does  not  give  us  the  advantage  of  knowing  the  con¬ 
temporary  argument  in  defence.  These  acts  are,  in 
perhaps  the  most  difficult  case,  analogous  to  acts  which 
are  now  produced  in  times  of  violence,  and  which  do  not 
draw  down  the  censure  of  mankind.  Admit  that  they 
leave  a  moral  difficulty  unexplained.  It  is  in  a  volume 
which,  taken  as  a  whole,  bears  a  testimony,  comprehensive, 
wonderful,  and  without  rival,  to  truth  and  righteousness. 
How  are  we  to  treat  the  case  1  I  answer  by  an  illus¬ 
tration.  Suppose  I  am  reading  a  work  full  of  algebraic 
equations,  which  I  find  to  be  a  sound  and  masterly 
book.  But  at  length  I  arrive  at  one  which  I  cannot 
wholly  solve,  cannot  wholly  comprehend.  Should  I  on 
this  account  renounce  and  condemn  the  book  ?  No ;  I 
should  reserve  it  in  hope  of  a  complete  solution  in  the 
future.  This  seems  to  be  the  mode  which  is  dictated 
alike  by  reverence  and  good  sense,  not  only  in  the  case 
of  the  Holy  Bible,  but  in  regard  to  the  mysterious 
problems  which  encounter  us  when  our  eyes  traverse 
the  field  of  human  destinies  at  large.  We  know  the 
abundant  richness  of  the  gift  we  hold  and  enjoy ;  as  to 
the  small  portion  of  light  at  present  withheld,  we 
contentedly  abide  our  time. 

Nor  let  our  appreciation  of  Holy  Scripture  in  any 
respect  be  cooled  by  our  becoming  conscious  that  the 
light  it  sheds  was  less  full  in  old  Hebrew  days  than 
when  the  fulness  of  time  had  come.  The  slight  and 
hardly  perceptible  points  of  difficulty  in  Holy  Writ  are 
doubtless  meant,  like  the  far  more  obtrusive  difficulties 
presented  by  the  face  of  the  world  and  of  life,  for  the 
trial,  enlargement  and  corroboration  of  the  principle  of 
faith  in  the  minds  of  believing  Christians,  and  thereby 
for  the  greater  excellence  and  happiness  of  man,  and 
the  more  abundant  glory  of  God  as  redounding  from  it. 


396  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

VII. 

After  this  review,  it  may  now  be  time  to  sum  up  the 
situation,  and  also  to  seek  a  moment’s  refreshment  in 
turning  from  topics  more  or  less  polemical  to  such  as  are 
practical. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  have  now  for  a  hundred  years 
resembled  a  beleaguered  town,  with  the  shouts  of  the 
foeman  and  the  roar  of  his  artillery  sounding  round  the 
walls.  It  would  be  most  unjust,  and  not  less  absurd,  to 
apply  such  a  description  or  anything  approaching  it  to 
a  reverent  criticism,  however  acute  might  be  its  vision, 
however  searching  its  processes,  or  whatever  effect  they 
might  have  had  in  disintegrating  the  sacred  volume. 
For  the  Bible  must,  on  account  of  its  human  dress,  come 
under  literary  treatment,  and  of  that  treatment  truth, 
and  not  comfort  or  quietude,  must  be  the  aim.  But 
the  penetrating  character  of  the  diagnosis  pursued  by 
a  skilled  physician  detracts  nothing  from  the  tenderness 
of  his  regard  either  for  the  character  or  the  feelings  of 
his  patient,  at  least  if,  besides  being  a  clever  he  is  also 
a  judicious  and  right-minded  man.  Now,  dividing 
roughly  assailants  from  defenders,  admitting  fully,  with 
respect  to  the  modern  critics,  that,  until  they  show  them¬ 
selves  otherwise,  they  are  to  be  considered  as  assailants 
only  of  the  form  and  not  the  spirit,  we  may  still  ask 
whether  their  tone  and  temper,  speaking  generally,  has 
been  such,  say,  for  example,  in  Germany,  as  the  Chris¬ 
tian  community  was  entitled  not  only  to  desire  but  to 
demand  ?  Have  they  proceeded  under  the  influence  of 
sentiment  such  as  would  govern  one  who  was  endeavour¬ 
ing  either  to  wipe  away  external  impurities  or  to  efface 
spurious  manipulations,  from  some  great  work  of  a 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARDS  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  397 


famous  artist  1  Not  the  mind  only,  but  the  finger  also, 
of  such  a  man  is  guided  by  tenderness  and  reverence 
throughout.  And,  in  the  case  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
to  tenderness  and  reverence  there  should  be  added  an 
everliving  sense  of  gratitude  for  the  work  which  they  have 
performed  and  are  performing  in  the  world.  Has  this 
been  the  prevailing  and  dominating  spirit  of  critical  nega¬ 
tion  during  the  last  half  century  ?  Sweeping  judgments, 
in  answer  to  such  a  question,  are  not  to  be  delivered 
without  breach  of  propriety  and  of  charity,  except  by 
students  both  widely  and  accurately  versed  in  the  subject 
matter.  A  very  limited  acquaintance  with  the  critical 
literature  certainly  does  not  show  me,  within  my  own 
narrow  bounds,  that  the  negative  school  carefully  eschews 
precipitancy  and  levity ;  that  it  never  seems  to  betray 
a  desire  for  the  negative  conclusion  rather  than  the 
affirmative ;  that  it  handles  what  it  deems  sick  and  sore 
places  as  children  would  deal  with  them  in  an  afflicted 
parent ;  that  reverence  is  the  keynote  of  its  tone.  Glad 
shall  I  be  if  better  informed  and  more  competent  judges 
are  able  to  render  a  different  and  more  satisfactory 
account. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  and  however  grave  at  the 
present  day  may  be  the  general  assault  upon  belief,  with 
which  Bible  criticism  ought  to  have  nothing  in  common, 
the  impression  made  upon  me  by  the  experience  of  life 
is  that,  wherever  religion  is  alive  the  Bible  has  not  lost 
any  of  its  power.  I  am  not  now  contemplating  its 
office  as  a  corrector  of  error,  as  a  tribunal  of  appeal 
upon  soundness  of  doctrine  and  of  practice,  but  am 
considering  it  entirely  with  reference  to  what  may  be 
termed  its  pastoral  office ;  to  that  declaration  of  the 
Apostle  which  apprises  us  that  all  Scripture  given  by 


398  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

inspiration  of  God  (I  am  now  assuming  that  the  lately 
revised  English  version  has  in  this  passage  improved 
upon  the  old  one)  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness.*  This 
was  to  Timothy,  who  from  a  child  had  known  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  of  the  older  covenant,  which  were  able  j  to  make 
him  “  wise  unto  salvation  ;  ”  that  is,  unto  hearty  recep¬ 
tion  of  the  faith  of  Christ.  And  if  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  laden  with  the  several  difficulties  of 
which  we  hear  so  much,  could  work  so  great  a  work, 
what  must  not  be  the  wealth,  and  what  the  capabilities 
of  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Covenant,  with  their 
larger,  brighter  and  more  disentangled  revelation? 

It  may  perhaps  be  excused  if,  before  concluding  this 
Introduction,  and  before  touching  upon  the  application 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  the  inward  life  of  civilised 
man  at  large,  I  venture,  and  not  without  diffidence, 
to  offer  a  few  words  to  the  class  of  which  I  have  been 
a  member  for  more  than  threescore  continuous  years — 
the  class  engaged  in  political  employment,  and  invested 
with  so  considerable  a  power  in  governing  the  affairs 
and  in  shaping  the  destinies  of  mankind.  In  my  own 
country  I  have  observed  that  those  who  form  this 
class  have  fallen  under  the  influence  of  the  negative 
or  agnostic  spirit  of  the  day  in  a  much  smaller  degree 
than  some  other  classes.  And,  indeed,  widening  the 
scope  of  this  observation,  I  would  say  that  the  descrip¬ 
tions  of  persons  who  are  habitually  conversant  with 
human  motive,  conduct,  and  concerns,  are  very  much 
less  borne  down  by  scepticism,  than  specialists  of  various 
kinds,  and  those  whose  pursuits  have  associated  them 


*  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 


f  Ibid.  1 15. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD?S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  399 

with  the  literature  of  fancy,  with  abstract  speculation, 
or  with  the  history  and  framework  of  inanimate  nature. 
So  far,  my  comrades  are  indeed  happy  in  their  lot. 
They  are  also  to  be  congratulated  on  this,  that  the 
good  they  do  has  the  privilege,  as  their  evil  deeds  have 
the  misfortune,  of  operating  at  once  on  the  character, 
condition,  and  prospects,  not  of  individuals  only,  but 
of  large  masses  of  their  fellow-creatures.  They  also 
enjoy  a  very  great  advantage,  which  perhaps  they  do 
not  always  duly  appreciate,  in  the  free-toned  action, 
even  if  sometimes  licentious  comment,  incessantly  offered 
by  the  press  and  the  public  on  their  proceedings.  More 
might  be  added  in  the  same  sense ;  but  I  forbear. 

Still,  the  distinctive  features  of  their  profession  are 
not  all  of  a  favourable  colour ;  they  are  under  peculiar 
temptations,  not  only  to  judge  with  undue  severity  the 
actions,  but  also  to  misconstrue  and  suspect  the  motives, 
of  those  with  whom  they  are  in  conflict  or  in  contact. 
Both  in  self-defence  and  in  the  prosecution  of  their 
aims,  which  we  may  suppose  to  be  generally  lawful, 
they  are  open  in  the  choice  of  means,  without  any 
visible  deviation  from  personal  honour,  to  tamper  in  a 
thousand  ways  with  the  purity  of  their  own  mental 
integrity.  Lastly,  and  all  the  more  in  proportion  as 
they  are  men  of  reality  and  masculine  strength,  they 
are  liable,  from  the  absorbing  interest  of  their  pursuit 
and  the  imperious  and,  so  to  speak,  domineering  nature 
of  its  demands  on  their  faculties,  to  be  reduced  to  a 
state  of  mental  exhaustion,  which,  far  more  subtly  than 
the  mere  want  of  leisure,  deprives  them  of  the  mental 
energy  necessary  in  order  duly  to  discharge  their  diffi¬ 
cult  duties,  or  to  face,  and  that  with  searching  judgment, 
complex  or  ensnaring  problems  or  laborious  inquiries. 


400  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD'S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  they  are  called  to  a  high 
but  dangerous  vocation,  abounding  in  opportunities  on 
the  one  hand,  and  dangers  on  the  other.  The  principle 
of  probation,  which  applies  to  all  men,  has  for  them  an 
application  altogether  special,  and  they,  even  more  than 
members  of  society  in  general,  require  to  drink  of 
that  water  which  whosoever  drinketh  of,  he  shall 
never  thirst  again/"  The  force  of  all  these  considera¬ 
tions  is  enhanced  by  the  unequivocal  tendency  of  the 
present,  and  probably  also  the  coming,  time,  both  to 
multiply  the  functions  of  government  and  to  carry 
them  into  regions  formerly  reserved  to  the  understand¬ 
ing  and  conscience  of  the  individual,  so  that  their 
risks  are  greatly  enhanced,  together  with  their  rewards 
for  fruitfulness  in  well-doing.  The  alternative  opened 
for  them  by  the  choice  between  good  and  evil  is  one  of 
tremendous  moment.  True  it  is  that  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  deals  in  but  scanty  bulk  with  the  specialties  of 
their  profession  ;  but  not  less  true  that  it  sheds  for  their 
benefit  a  whole  flood  of  light  on  the  virtues  of  humility, 
charity,  justice,  and  moral  courage,  without  which  their 
profession  is  but  a  snare,  and  promises  to  them  in  its 
earnest  and,  if  possible,  systematic  perusal,  the  richest 
results  of  a  happy  experience. 

I  have  referred  to  the  vast  multiplication  of  copies  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  through  Bible  societies  and  other¬ 
wise.  If  we  turn  to  other  portions  of  the  Christian 
fold  than  those  principally  concerned  with  Bible  societies, 
we  must  not  forget  to  observe  that  free  and  full  cir¬ 
culation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  was  the  rule  and  practice 
of  the  entire  Christian  Church,  until  in  the  course  of 


*  John  h\  14. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  401 


the  sixteenth  century  jealousies  due  to  the  controversies 
of  the  time  produced,  as  it  would  appear,  a  change  of 
policy  in  the  Latin  Church.  I  have  myself  purchased 
in  Athens  a  cheap  copy  of  the  tract  of  St.  Chrysostom, 
in  which  he  presses  upon  the  laity  the  study  of  the 
Holy  Bible,  and  contests  the  arguments  of  those  indis¬ 
posed  to  forward  it.  This  tract  was  published  with  the 
countenance  of  the  Archbishop.  I  also  possess  a  beau¬ 
tiful  copy  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts  without  note  or 
comment  in  a  pocket  size,  printed  at  Yenice  in  1544, 
and  another  of  the  same  character,  also  printed  at 
Yenice  in  1536  ;  both  of  them  without  note  or  com¬ 
ment.  In  truth,  the  amount  of  diffusion  of  the  sacred 
volume  from  the  era  of  the  invention  of  printing  down 
to  the  Reformation  is  even  astonishing.  They  were 
translated  and  printed  in  almost  every  European  tongue, 
except  the  Russian.  I  find  from  my  learned  friend 
Dr.  Ginsburg,  that  Germany  had  no  less  than  six¬ 
teen  complete  versions.  In  Erance  the  Yersions  and 
Epitomes,  taken  together,  amounted  to  twenty.  England 
lagged  deplorably,  and  had  nothing  before  Tyndale  :  for 
the  great  work  of  Wycliffe  was  never  printed  until  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century  had  gone  by.  We  must  hope 
that  the  appreciation  of  the  teaching  and  feeding  efficacy 
of  the  Bible  is  increasing ;  and  that  any  jealousies  asso¬ 
ciated  either  with  the  grave  difficulties  of  translation,  or 
with  the  possibility  that  perverse  minds  may  now  treat 
the  sacred  books  as  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were 
treated  in  the  Apostolic  age,  are  being  gradually  abated. 
Why  should  the  dutiful  perusal  of  the  Bible  raise  any 
apprehension  on  behalf  of  the  Church,  or  Kingdom  of 
God,  which  is  exhibited  with  so  much  force  in  impor¬ 
tant  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  set  forth,  or 
i.  2d 


402  INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE. 

presupposed,  in  almost  every  page  of  the  New  ?  Does  it 
not  seem  that  God  has  consigned  to  us  a  double  witness 
in  the  living  voice  which  proclaims  that  Word  throughout 
the  world,  and  in  the  unalterable  record  which  provides 
for  maintaining  the  harmony  between  that  living  human 
voice  and  the  Divine  purpose?  Not,  indeed,  that  the 
Bible  has  either  converted  the  world,  or  saved  Christi¬ 
anity  from  all  error  and  corruption,  any  more  than  it  has 
saved  Christians  from  all  sin.  But,  of  the  actual  faith 
and  love  that  subsist  in  the  Christian  heart,  despite  the 
world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  who  can  doubt  that,  over 
and  above  the  corrective  action  of  the  Bible,  there  is  a 
vast  portion  due  to  the  direct  influence,  most  of  all 
perhaps  among  English-speaking  peoples,  of  its  words 
upon  heart  and  life  ? 

“  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words 
ishall  not  pass  away.”  As  they  have  lived  and  wrought, 
so  they  will  live  and  work.  From  the  teacher’s  chair 
and  from  the  pastor’s  pulpit ;  in  the  humblest  hymn 
that  ever  mounted  to  the  ear  of  God  from  beneath  a 
cottage  roof,  and  in  the  rich  melodious  choir  of  the 
noblest  cathedral,  “their  sound  is  gone  out  into  all 
lands,  and  their  voices  unto  the  ends  of  the  world.”  * 
Nor  here  alone,  but  in  a  thousand  silent  and  unsuspected 
forms,  will  they  unweariedly  prosecute  their  holy  office. 
Who  doubts  that,  times  without  number,  particular 
portions  of  Scripture  find  their  way  to  the  human  soul 
as  if  embassies  from  on  high,  each  with  its  own  com¬ 
mission  of  comfort,  of  guidance,  or  of  warning?  What 
crisis,  what  trouble,  what  perplexity  of  life  has  failed 
or  can  fail  to  draw  from  this  inexhaustible  treasure- 


*  Ps.  xix.  4. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  SHEPPARD’S  PICTORIAL  BIBLE.  403 


house  its  proper  supply  ?  What  profession,  what  position 
is  not  daily  and  hourly  enriched  by  these  words  which 
repetition  never  weakens,  which  carry  with  them  the 
freshness  of  youth  and  immortality  ?  When  the  solitary 
student  opens  all  his  heart  to  drink  them  in,  they  will 
reward  his  toil.  And  in  forms  yet  more  hidden  and 
withdrawn,  in  the  retirement  of  the  chamber,  in  the 
stillness  of  the  night  season,  upon  the  bed  of  sickness, 
and  in  the  face  of  death,  the  Bible  will  be  there,  its 
several  words  how  often  winged  with  their  several  and 
special  messages,  to  heal  and  to  soothe,  to  uplift  and 
uphold,  to  invigorate  and  stir.  Nay,  more  perhaps  than 
this ;  amid  the  crowds  of  the  court,  or  the  forum,  or 
the  street,  or  the  market-place,  when  every  thought 
of  every  soul  seems  to  be  set  upon  the  excitements  of 
ambition  or  of  business  or  of  pleasure,  there  too,  even 
there,  the  still  small  voice  of  the  Holy  Bible  will  be 
heard,  and  the  soul,  aided  by  some  blessed  word,  may 
find  wings  like  a  dove,  may  flee  away  and  be  at  rest. 


XIII. 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 

I. — Soliloquium. 

May,  1896. 

[TJie  following  paper,  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  was  communicated 
by  His  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  York  to  the  London 
newspapers,  with  a  request  for  its  publication.] 

The  question  of  the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders  might 
seem  to  be  of  limited  interest  if  it  were  only  to  be  treated 
by  the  amount  of  any  immediate,  practical,  and  external 
consequences  likely  to  follow  upon  any  discussion  or 
decision  that  might  now  be  taken  in  respect  to  it.  For 
the  clergy  of  the  Anglican  communions,  numbering 
between  30,000  and  40,000,  and  for  their  flocks,  the 
whole  subject  is  one  of  settled  solidity.  In  the  Oriental 
Churches  there  prevails  a  sentiment  of  increased  and 
increasing  friendliness  towards  the  Anglican  Church, 
but  no  question  of  actual  intercommunion  is  likely  at 
present  to  arise,  while,  happily,  no  system  of  proselytism 
exists  to  set  a  blister  on  our  mutual  relations.  In  the 
Latin  Church,  which  from  its  magnitude  and  the  close 
tissue  of  its  organization  overshadows  all  Western 
Christendom,  these  Orders,  so  far  as  they  have  been 
noticed,  have  been  commonly  disputed,  or  denied,  or 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


+05 


treated  as  if  they  were  null.  A  positive  condemnation 
of  them,  if  viewed  dryly  in  its  letter,  would  do  no  more 
than  harden  the  existing  usage  of  reordination  in  the 
case — which  at  most  periods  has  been  a  rare  one — of 
Anglican  clergy  who  might  seek  admission  to  the  clerical 
order  in  the  Roman  Church. 

But  very  different  indeed  would  be  the  moral  aspect 
and  effect  of  a  formal,  authorized  investigation  of  the 
question  at  Rome,  to  whichever  side  the  result  might 
incline.  It  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable  that  a  ruler 
of  known  wisdom  would  at  this  time  put  in  motion  the 
machinery  of  the  Curia  for  the  purpose  of  widening 
the  breach  which  severs  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
from  a  communion  which,  though  small  in  comparison, 
yet  is  extended  through  the  large  and  fast -increasing 
range  of  the  English-speaking  races,  and  which  re¬ 
presents,  in  the  religious  sphere,  one  of  the  most 
powerful  nations  of  European  Christendom.  According 
to  my  reading  of  history,  that  breach  is  indeed  already 
a  wide  one,  but  the  existing  schism  has  not  been  put 
into  stereotype  by  any  anathema,  or  any  express  re¬ 
nunciation  of  communion,  on  either  side.  As  an 
acknowledgment  of  Anglican  Orders  would  not  create 
intercommunion,  so  a  condemnation  of  them  would  not 
absolutely  excommunicate ;  but  it  would  be  a  step,  and 
even  morally  a  stride,  towards  excommunication,  and 
it  would  stand  as  a  practical  affirmation  of  the  principle 
that  it  is  wise  to  make  religious  differences  between 
the  Churches  of  Christendom  more  conspicuous  to  the 
world,  and  also  to  bring  them  into  a  state  of  the  highest 
fixity,  so  as  to  enhance  the  difficulty  of  approaching 
them  at  any  future  time  in  the  spirit  of  reconciliation. 
From  such  a  point  of  view,  an  inquiry  resulting  in  ^ 


406 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


proscription  of  Anglican  orders  would  be  no  less 
important  than  deplorable. 

But  the  information  which  I  have  been  allowed, 
through  the  kindness  of  Lord  Halifax,  to  share, 
altogether  dispels  from  my  mind  every  apprehension  of 
this  kind,  and  convinces  me  that  if  the  investigations 
of  the  Curia  did  not  lead  to  a  favourable  result  wisdom 
and  charity  would  in  any  case  arrest  them  at  such 
a  point  as  to  prevent  their  becoming  an  occasion  and 
a  means  of  embittering  religious  controversy. 

I  turn,  therefore,  to  the  other  alternative,  and  assume, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  judgment  of  the 
examining  tribunal  would  be  found  either  to  allow  upon 
all  points  the  preponderance  of  the  contentions  on  behalf 
of  validity,  or  at  the  least  to  place  beyond  controversy 
a  portion  of  the  matters  which  enter  into  the  essence  of 
the  discussion.  I  will  for  the  present  take  it  for  granted 
that  these  fall  under  three  heads  : — 

(1)  The  external  competency  of  the  Consecrators. 

(2)  The  external  sufficiency  of  the  Commission  they 

have  conferred. 

(3)  That  sufficiency  of  intention  which  the  eleventh 

Canon  of  the  Council  of  Trent  appears  to 
require. 

Under  the  first  head,  the  examination  would,  of 
course,  include,  in  addition  to  the  consecration  of  Parker, 
and  the  competency  of  his  consecrators,  the  several 
cases  in  which  consecrators  outside  the  English  line 
have  participated  in  the  consecrations  of  Anglican 
bishops,  and  have  in  this  manner  furnished  independent 
grounds  for  the  assertion  of  validity.  Even  the  dis¬ 
missal  from  the  controversy  of  any  one  of  these  three 
heads  would  be  in  the  nature  of  an  advance  towards 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


407 


concord,  and  would  be  so  far  a  reward  for  the  labours 
of  his  Holiness,  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  in  furtherance  of  truth 
and  peace.  But  I  may  be  permitted  to  contemplate  for 
a  moment,  as  possible  or  likely,  even  the  full  acknow¬ 
ledgment  that,  without  reference  to  any  other  real  or 
supposed  points  of  controversy,  the  simple  abstract 
validity  of  Anglican  consecrations  is  not  subject  to 
reasonable  doubt. 

And  now  I  must  take  upon  me  to  speak  in  the  only 
capacity  in  which  it  can  be  warrantable  for  me  to 
intervene  in  a  discussion  properly  belonging  to  persons 
of  competent  authority.  That  is,  the  capacity  of  an 
absolutely  private  person,  born  and  baptized  in  the 
Anglican  Church,  accepting  his  lot  there,  as  is  the  duty 
of  all  who  do  not  find  that  she  has  forfeited  her  original 
and  inherent  privilege  and  place.  I  may  add  that  my 
case  is  that  of  one  who  has  been  led  by  the  circumstances 
both  of  his  private  and  of  his  public  career,  to  a  life¬ 
long  and  rather  close  observation  of  her  character,  her 
fortunes,  and  the  part  she  has  to  play  in  the  grand 
history  of  Redemption.  Thus  it  is  that  her  public 
interests  are  also  his  personal  interests,  and  that  they 
require  or  justify  what  is  no  more  than  his  individual 
thought  upon  them. 

He  is  not  one  of  those  who  look  for  an  early  restitution 
of  such  a  Christian  unity  as  that  which  marked  the 
earlier  history  of  the  Church.  Yet  he  even  cherishes 
the  belief  that  work  may  lie  done  in  that  direction, 
which,  if  not  majestic  or  imposing,  may  nevertheless  be 
legitimate  and  solid,  and  this  by  the  least  as  well  as  by 
the  greatest. 

It  is  the  Pope  who,  as  the  first  Bishop  of  Christendom, 
has  the  noblest  sphere  of  action ;  but  the  humblest  of 


408 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


the  Christian  flock  has  his  place  of  daily  duty,  and, 
according  as  he  Alls  it,  helps  to  make  or  mar  every  good 
and  holy  work. 

In  this  character  the  writer  has  viewed  with  profound 
and  thankful  satisfaction,  during  the  last  half  century 
and  more,  the  progressive  advance  of  a  great  work  of 
restoration  in  Christian  doctrine.  It  has  not  been 
wholly  confined  within  his  own  country,  to  the  Anglican 
communion,  but  it  is  best  that  he  should  speak  of  that 
which  has  been  most  under  his  eye.  Within  these 
limits,  it  has  not  been  confined  to  doctrine,  but  has 
extended  to  Christian  life  and  all  its  workings.  The 
aggregate  result  has  been  that  it  has  brought  the  Church 
of  England  from  a  state  externally  of  halcyon  calm,  but 
inwardly  of  deep  stagnation,  to  one  in  which,  while 
buffeted  more  or  less  by  external  storms,  subjected  to 
some  peculiar  and  searching  forms  of  trial,  and  even 
now  by  no  means  exempt  from  internal  dissensions,  she 
sees  her  clergy  transformed  (for  this  is  the  word  which 
may  advisedly  be  used),  her  vital  energies  enlarged  and 
still  growing  in  every  direction,  and  a  store  of  bright 
hopes  accumulated  that  she  may  be  able  to  contribute 
her  share,  and  even  possibly  no  mean  share,  towards 
the  consummation  of  the  work  of  the  Gospel  in  the 
world. 

Now,  the  contemplation  of  these  changes  by  no  means 
uniformly  ministers  to  our  pride.  They  involve  large 
admissions  of  collective  fault.  This  is  not  the  place, 
and  I  am  not  the  proper  organ,  for  exposition  in  detail. 
But  I  may  mention  the  widespread  depression  of 
evangelical  doctrine,  the  insufficient  exhibition  of  the 
person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer,  the  coldness  and  dead¬ 
ness  as  well  as  the  infrequency  of  public  worship,  the 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


409 


relegation  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  impoverished  ideas 
and  to  the  place  of  one  (though  doubtless  a  solemn  one) 
among  its  occasional  incidents ;  the  gradual  effacement 
of  Church  observance  from  personal  and  daily  life.  In 
all  these  respects  there  has  been  a  profound  alteration, 
which  is  still  progressive,  and  which,  apart  from  occa¬ 
sional  extravagance  or  indiscretion,  has  indicated  a  real 
adATance  in  the  discipline  of  souls,  and  in  the  work  of 
God  on  behalf  of  man.  A  single-minded  allegiance  to 
truth  sometimes  exacts  admissions  which  may  be  turned 
to  account  for  the  purpose  of  inflicting  polemical  dis¬ 
advantage.  Such  an  admission  I  must  now  record.  It 
is  not  to  be  denied  that  a  very  large  part  of  these 
improvements  has  lain  in  a  direction  which  has  diminished 
the  breadth  of  separation  between  ourselves  and  the 
authorized  teaching  of  the  unreformed  Church  both  in 
East  and  West,  so  that,  while  on  the  one  hand  they 
were  improvements  in  religious  doctrine  and  life,  on 
the  other  hand  they  were  testimonials  recorded  against 
ourselves  and  in  favour  of  bodies  outside  our  own  pre¬ 
cinct— that  is  to  say,  they  were  valuable  contributions 
to  the  cause  of  Christian  reunion. 

With  sorrow  we  noted  that,  so  far  as  the  Western 
Church  was  concerned,  its  only  public  and  corporate 
movements,  especially  in  1870,  seemed  to  meet  the 
approximations  made  among  us  with  something  of 
recession  from  us.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  open 
further  this  portion  of  the  subject  ;  redeunt  Saturnia 
regna.  Certain  publications  of  learned  French  priests, 
unsuspected  in  their  orthodoxy,  which  went  to  affirm 
the  validity  of  Anglican  ordinations,  naturally  excited 
much  interest  in  this  country  and  elsewhere.  But  there 
was  nothing  in  them  to  ruffle  the  Roman  atmosphere, 


410 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


or  invest  the  subject,  in  the  circles  of  the  Vatican,  with 
the  character  of  administrative  urgency. 

When,  therefore,  it  came  to  be  understood  that  Pope 
Leo  XIII.  had  given  his  commands  that  the  validity 
of  Anglican  ordinations  should  form  the  subject  of  an 
historical  and  theological  investigation,  it  was  impossible 
not  to  be  impressed  with  the  profound  interest  of  the 
considerations  brought  into  view  by  such  a  step,  if 
interpreted  in  accordance  with  just  reason,  as  an  effort 
towards  the  abatement  of  controversial  differences. 

There  was  indeed  in  my  view  a  subject  of  thought, 
anterior  to  any  scrutiny  of  the  question  upon  its 
intrinsic  merits,  which  deeply  impressed  itself  upon 
my  mind.  Religious  controversies  do  not,  like  bodily 
wounds,  heal  by  the  genial  force  of  nature.  If  they  do 
not  proceed  to  gangrene  and  to  mortification,  at  least 
they  tend  to  harden  into  fixed  facts,  to  incorporate 
themselves  with  law,  character,  and  tradition,  nay, 
even  with  language ;  so  that  at  last  they  take  rank 
among  the  data  and  presuppositions  of  common  life, 
and  are  thought  as  inexpugnable  as  the  rocks  of  an 
iron-bound  coast.  A  poet  of  ours  describes  the  sharp 
and  total  severance  of  two  early  friends  : — 

“  They  parted,  ne’er  to  meet  again, 

But  never  either  found  another 
To  free  the  hollow  heart  from  paining. 

They  stood  aloof,  the  scars  remaining, 

Like  cliffs,  which  had  been  rent  asunder, 

A  dreary  sea  now  rolls  between.”  * 

Let  us  remember  that  we  are  now  far  advanced  in 
the  fourth  century  since  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury, 


*  Coleridge’s  ‘  Christabel.’ 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


411 


under  Warham  in  1531,  passed  its  canon  or  resolution 
on  the  Royal  Governorship  of  the  Church. 

How  much  has  happened  during  those  centuries  to 
inilame  the  strife,  how  little  to  abate  or  quench  it  ! 
What  courage  must  it  require  in  a  Pope,  what  an 
elevation  above  all  the  levels  of  stormy  partisanship, 
what  genuineness  of  love  for  the  whole  Christian  flock, 
whether  separated  or  annexed,  to  enable  him  to  ap¬ 
proach  the  huge  mass  of  hostile  and  still  burning  recol¬ 
lections  in  the  spirit,  and  for  the  purposes,  of  peace  ! 

And  yet,  that  is  what  Pope  Leo  XIII.  has  done, 
first  in  entertaining  the  question  of  this  inquiry,  and 
secondly,  in  determining  and  providing,  by  the  infusion 
both  of  capacity  and  of  impartiality  into  the  investigat¬ 
ing  tribunal,  that  no  instrument  should  be  overlooked, 
no  guarantee  omitted  for  the  probable  attainment  of 
the  truth.  He  who  bears  in  mind  the  cup  of  cold 
water  administered  to  ‘ £  one  of  these  little  ones  ”  will 
surely  record  this  effort  stamped  in  its  very  inception 
as  alike  arduous  and  blessed. 

But  what  of  the  advantage  to  be  derived  from  any 
proceeding  which  shall  end,  or  shall  reduce  within 
narrower  bounds,  the  debate  upon  Anglican  Orders? 
I  will  put  upon  paper,  with  the  utmost  deference  to 
authority  and  better  judgment,  my  own  personal  and 
individual,  and,  as  I  freely  admit,  very  insignificant 
reply  to  the  question. 

The  one  controversy  which,  according  to  my  deep 
conviction,  overshadows,  and  in  the  last  resort  absorbs, 
all  others  is  the  controversy  between  faith  and  unbelief. 
It  is  easy  to  understand  the  reliance  which  the  loyal 
Roman  Catholic  places  upon  the  vast  organization  and 
imposing  belief  and  action  of  His  Church  as  his  provision 


412 


SOLILOQUIUM  AXD  POSTSCRIPT. 


for  meeting  the  emergency.  But  I  presume  that  even 
he  must  feel  that  the  hundreds  of  millions  who  profess 
the  name  of  Christ  without  owning  the  authority  of  His 
Church  must  count  for  something  in  the  case,  and  that 
the  more  he  is  able  to  show  their  affirmative  belief  to 
stand  in  consonance  with  his,  the  more  he  strengthens 
both  the  common  cause— for  surely  there  is  a  common 
cause — and  his  own  particular  position. 

If,  out  of  every  hundred  professing  Christians,  ninety  - 
nine  assert  amidst  all  their  separate  and  clashing  con¬ 
victions  their  belief  in  the  central  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  will  not  every  member  of 
each  particular  Church  or  community  be  forward  to 
declare — will  not  the  candid  unbeliever  be  disposed 
freely  to  admit,  that  this  unity  amidst  diversity  is  a 
great  confirmation  of  the  faith,  and  a  broad  basis  on 
which  to  build  our  hopes  of  the  future  ? 

I  now  descend  to  a  level  which,  if  lower  than  that  of 
these  transcendant  doctrines,  is  still  a  lofty  level. 

The  historical  transmission  of  the  truth  by  a  visible 
Church  with  an  ordained  constitution  is  a  matter  of 
profound  importance  according  to  the  belief  and  practice 
of  fully  three-fourths  of  Christendom.  In  these  three- 
fourths  I  include  the  Anglican  Churches,  which  are 
probably  required  in  order  to  make  them  up. 

It  is  surely  better  for  the  Roman  and  also  the 
Oriental  Church  to  find  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican 
succession  standing  side  by  side  with  them  in  the 
assertion  of  what  they  deem  an  important  Christian 
principle,  than  to  be  obliged  to  regard  them  as  mere 
pretenders  in  this  behalf,  and  pro  taw  to  to  reduce  the 
“  cloud  of  witnesses  ”  willing  and  desirous  to  testify 
on  behalf  of  the  principle.  These  considerations  of 


S0L1L0QUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT.  413 

advantage  must  of  course  be  subordinated  to  historic 
truth,  but  for  the  moment  advantage  is  the  point  with 
which  1  deal. 

I  attach  no  such  value  to  these  reflections  as  would 
warrant  my  tendering  them  for  the  consideration  of  any 
responsible  person,  much  less  of  one  laden  with  the 
cares  and  responsibilities  of  the  highest  position  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  them  which 
requires  that  they  should  shrink  from  the  light.  They 
simply  indicate  the  views  of  one  who  has  passed  a  very 
long  life  in  rather  intimate  connection  with  the  Church 
of  this  country,  with  its  rulers,  its  members,  and  its 
interests.  I  may  add  that  my  political  life  has  brought 
me  much  into  contact  with  those  independent  religious 
communities  which  supply  an  important  religious  factor 
in  the  religious  life  of  Great  Britain,  and  which,  speak¬ 
ing  generally,  while  they  decline  to  own  the  authority 
either  of  the  Roman  or  of  the  National  Church,  yet 
still  allow  to  what  they  know  as  the  established  religion 
no  inconsiderable  hold  upon  their  sympathies. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say  what  will  be 
the  upshot  of  the  proceedings  now  in  progress  at  Rome. 
But,  be  their  issue  what  it  may,  there  is,  in  my  view, 
no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  attitude  which  has  been 
taken  by  the  actual  Head  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  in  regard  to  them.  It  seems  to  me  an  attitude 
in  the  largest  sense  paternal,  and  while  it  will  probably 
stand  among  the  latest  recollections  of  my  lifetime, 
it  will  ever  be  cherished  with  cordial  sentiments  of 
reverence,  of  gratitude,  and  of  high  appreciation. 


414 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


II. — Postscript. 

The  readers  of  this  foregoing  paper  will  find  that  its 
purport  is  capable  of  being  briefly  summed  up  as  follows  : 

1.  The  immediate  question  concerned  in  the  inquiry 
spontaneously  instituted  last  year  by  Pope  Leo  XIII., 
that  is  to  say,  the  opinion  of  the  Roman  See  on  the 
validity  of  the  commission  now  given  to  Anglican 
clergy,  is  intrinsically  of  small  importance. 

2.  But  by  way  of  significance  it  is  important,  both  on 
the  negative  and  on  the  positive  side. 

3.  On  the  positive  side,  after  all  that  has  happened 
during  the  last  (nearly)  four  centuries,  the  spontaneous 
effort  of  a  Pope  to  deal  with  a  controverted  matter  in  a 
spirit  of  approximation  and  of  peace,  was  a  step  full  of 
advantage  to  the  cause  of  religion,  and  entitled  the  high 
person  taking  it  to  the  warmest  and  most  grateful 
acknowledgments. 

4.  And  that,  negatively,  an  authoritative  condemna¬ 
tion  of  what  every  Roman  theologian  has  hitherto  been 
free  to  support  would  be  a  grave  evil  in  hardening  and 
widening  religious  discord. 

5.  That  on  every  ground  of  sense  and  prudence  we 
might  be  certain  that  the  Pope  had  secured  himself 
against  such  a  frustration  of  his  purposes,  and  there¬ 
fore  was  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  having  struck  a  great 
stroke  in  the  interest  of  unity  and  concord. 

The  language  of  my  paper  seems  fairly  adapted  to 
such  a  state  of  facts.  But  it  is  entirely  dislocated  by 
the  events  as  they  now  stand  before  us.  For  we  now 
know  that  the  inquiry,  supposed  to  be  free,  was  in 
reality  fettered  by  the  condition  that  it  should  not 
bring  into  question  any  prior  condemnatory  utterance 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


415 


of  the  Roman  See ;  that  the  whole  subject  had  been 
already  decided  by  such  condemnatory  utterances ;  and 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  Rome,  the  commission  of  the 
Anglican  clergy  is  wholly  valueless  and  null.  It 
appears,  therefore,  that  no  Roman  writer  may  hence¬ 
forward  defend  the  reverse  proposition,  on  which  he  has 
heretofore  been  entirely  free.  In  the  face  of  this 
sentence  of  wrath,  which  I  leave  to  be  dealt  with  *  on  its 
merits  by  those  competent  to  the  task,  we  have  still 
before  us  the  good  intentions  of  the  Pope,  which  have 
undergone  so  sad  a  miscarriage.  For  one,  I  believe  in 
those  intentions,  as  fully  as  before.  With  regard  to  his 
adaptation  of  means  to  ends,  that  is  a  different  matter. 
A  man  of  good  intentions,  desirous  to  warm  a  house, 
may,  by  happening  to  make  the  fire  on  the  floor  instead 
of  in  the  grate,  burn  it  to  the  ground.  What  I  desire 
now  to  do  is  to  part  company  altogether  from  the 
excellent  person  who  at  the  moment  fills  the  Roman 
chair,  and  to  consider  his  Bull,  or  Brief,  Apostolicse 
Curse,  simply  as  an  historical  event,  and  in  its  due 
relation  to  other  historical  events.  I  will  not  delay 
even  to  point  out  how  easy  it  would  have  been,  if 
positive  good  could  not  on  this  occasion  have  been  done, 
to  relegate  the  question  to  farther  and  future  exami¬ 
nation,  as  Pope  Gregory  XYI.  wisely  attempted  to  do 
when  the  ardour  of  Lamennais,  in  1831,  sought  to  force 
him  into  an  alliance  with  the  famous  Avenir,  which  he 
did  not  dare  to  undertake.! 

*  It  has  now  been  dealt  with  by  the  Reply  of  the  two  archbishops 
in  an  exposition  which  I  believe  has  entirely  satisfied  the  members  of 
the  Anglican  Church. — W.  E.  G.,  March  26,  1897. 

f  I  burden  this  paper  with  only  one  word  of  personal  explanation. 
My  intervention  in  this  matter  would  have  been  wholly  unwarrantable, 
had  it  been  gratuitous.  The  Soliloquium  was  not  written  until  (to  my 


416 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


The  century,  which  is  now  drawing  to  its  close,  has 
been  one  famous  for  the  material  and  political  develop¬ 
ments  which  it  has  exhibited.  But  it  awakens  interests 
yet  more  profound  in  connection  with  the  moral  and 
spiritual  destinies  of  man.  I  write  entirely  from  one 
defined  and  immovable  point  of  view.  According  to  my 
mind,  the  whole  interests  of  the  human  race  eventually 
depend  upon  one  question,  the  question  of  belief  ;  as, 
again,  belief  is  summed  up  in  Christianity,  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  Christ ;  He  is  for  us  the  true  Alpha  and  the 
true  Omega.  I  am  not  now  inquiring  as  to  the  width 
of  the  precinct  where  the  traces  of  His  presence  and 
power  may  be  found,  but  only  laying  the  ground  for 
my  contention ;  which  is,  that  every  measure,  and  every 
movement,  in  matters  of  religion,  without  any  exception, 
ought  to  be  ultimately  tried  by  its  tendency  to  bring 
mankind  nearer  to  Christ,  or  to  remove  them  farther 
from  Him.  But  here  I  must  insert  a  word  to  obviate 
misunderstanding.  I  do  not  for  a  moment  separate 
belief  from  conduct.  But  belief  is,  for  the  race,  not  the 
individual,  as  the  rule,  not  as  the  exception,  the  rule  and 
source  of  conduct.  Christian  belief  is  itself  a  means  to 
an  end.  It  carries  in  its  bosom  the  only  true  and 
enduring  type  of  full  moral  excellence ;  and  the  life 
of  belief  lies  in  this,  that  by  means  of  it  we  are  to 
become  assimilated  with  Him  in  whom  we  believe. 


great  surprise)  I  had  received  from  Rome  the  tidings  that,  in  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  quarters,  a  declaration  of  the  kind  from  me  was  vivement 
desire.  Further,  I  wrote  to  an  old  friend,  holding  a  distinguished 
position  in  the  Italian  Church,  a  letter  couched  in  terms  not  less 
warm  than  those  of  the  Soliloquium ;  and  I  received  through  him  in 
return,  from  the  official  representative  of  his  Holiness  and  on  his 
behalf,  a  most  gracious  acknowledgment,  the  terms  of  which  I  feel 
myself  authorized  to  publish  should  it  be  demanded. 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


417 


The  age  has  been  what  may  be  rudely  termed  an 
Armageddon  age ;  not  indeed  exhibiting  the  stages  of 
the  great  battle  between  faith  and  unfaith,  but  the 
marshalling  on  either  side  of  the  forces  with  a  view  to 
some  decisive  encounter.  On  the  one  hand,  immense 
additions  have  been  made  to  secular  and  scientific 
knowledge ;  the  whole  of  which  ought,  of  course,  to  be 
claimed  as  effectually  auxiliary  to  the  grand  truth  of  ah, 
the  truth  of  Christ.  They  are,  however,  so  generally 
and  loudly  boasted,  by  those  who  deny  the  authority  of 
religion,  as  their  best  allies,  that  they  stand  in  the 
minds  of  multitudes  as  forming  the  heaviest  artillery 
which  is  to  clear  Christianity  off  the  field.  And  it 
must  be  admitted  that  not  a  few  among  believers  have 
failed  to  give  them  that  uncompromising  and  hearty 
welcome,  which  would  have  been  the  best  preservative 
against  so  mischievous  an  error.  I  may  be  asked,  Where, 
upon  my  showing,  lie  the  reasons  for  alarm  on  behalf  of 
religion,  and  of  the  interest  of  mankind  in  it  ?  I  answer 
that  they  lie  partly  in  imperfect  or  perverted  ideas 
among  religionists  themselves  as  to  the  proper  effects  of 
science  and  research ;  secondly,  they  lie  in  a  less  sus¬ 
pected  but  far  more  dangerous  quarter.  The  enormous 
increase  in  the  material  comforts  and  conveniences  of 
common  life,  and  a  proportionate  multiplication  of 
human  desires  and  appetites,  have  cast  a  heavy  weight 
into  the  scale,  in  which  things  seen  and  temporal  are 
weighed  against  things  unseen  and  eternal.  Thirdly, 
it  must  be  added  that  there  is  a  large  and  palpable 
decay  of  what  may  be  called  traditional  or  hereditary 
religion ;  a  form  of  character  and  observance  unsatis¬ 
factory  in  itself,  but  which  has  for  a  long  time 
constituted  in  multitudes  of  cases  a  holding-ground  in 


418 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


the  individual  soul,  available  for  further  and  more  vital 
advances,  but  now  lost  without  a  substitute. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  century  has  witnessed  a 
powerful  and  extensive  revival  of  religious  influences, 
both  personal  and  corporate,  if  not  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  professedly  Christian  body,  yet  in  very 
large  and  important  portions  of  it ;  for  example,  in  the 
Latin  Church  generally,  and  throughout  the  English- 
speaking  race,  together  covering  considerably  more  than 
a  moiety  of  Christendom,  and  likewise  constituting  those 
portions  of  it  which  are  in  the  most  direct  contact  with 
rebellious  elements  and  most  visibly  summoned  ‘ 1  to  the 
help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty.”  So  far,  then,  it 
would  appear  that  these  portions  of  the  Church  are  the 
portions  to  which  the  very  highest  interests  of  mankind 
are  at  the  present  time,  not  indeed  exclusively,  but 
principally  confided,  and  in  whose  hands  the  question 
of  questions  mainly  lies. 

But  it  is  patent  to  every  eye  that  what  I  am  here 
rudely  describing  as  a  Christian  host,  engaged  with  a 
community  of  design  in  the  highest  of  all  enterprises, 
the  promotion  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  is  in  fact 
bitterly  and  sharply  divided  within  itself.  So  much  so, 
indeed,  that  great  numbers  of  its  members  seem  to  be 
wholly  unconscious  that  there  is  a  community  of  interest 
and  work  pervading  the  whole  body.  This  weighty  fact  is 
by  multitudes  either  forgotten  or  unknown.  Some  among 
them,  indeed,  both  Protestant  and  Roman,  appear  to 
think  that  their  holiest  duty  and  their  chief  concern  lies, 
not  in  putting  down  the  spirit  of  unbelief  or  the  spirit 
of  the  world,  but  in  combating  and  exposing  the  e  rrors, 
real  or  supposed,  which  they  detect  in  some  Christian 
teaching,  and  in  the  work  known  as  that  of  proselytise  1. 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


419 


It  would  be  painful,  and  it  is  unnecessary,  to  point  to 
the  sections  of  Christians  among  whom  this  is  most 
observable ;  but  my  desire  and  object  are  to  protest 
broadly  against  their  methods,  which  in  substance  go  to 
deny  that  there  is  a  common  belief  among  Christians, 
and  that,  in  the  face  of  the  unbelief  of  the  day,  the 
interest  of  this  common  belief  is  the  highest  of  all 
Christian  interests  in  the  world  of  thought. 

Can  there,  in  the  first  place,  be  any  doubt  as  to 
the  existence  of  this  common  belief?  The  whole  of  the 
unreformed  Church,  Eastern  and  Western,  continues  to 
recite,  in  terms  which  are  absolutely  identical  except  as 
to  an  expression  declared  by  its  interpolators  to  imply 
no  difference  of  doctrine,  the  whole  of  the  Nicene  or 
Constantinopolitan  creed.  The  Anglican  Churches  do 
precisely  the  same.  It  is  only  when  we  come  to  the 
mode  of  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the 
visibility  and  historical  succession  of  the  Church,  and 
to  the  relation  between  Baptism  and  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  that  the  Reformed  Churches  which  are  not 
Episcopal,  are  either  equivocal  in  their  agreement  with, 
or  patently  dissent  from,  the  large  majority  of  Chris¬ 
tendom.  I  do  not  dissemble  the  importance,  or  the 
lamentable  character,  of  the  discord  thus  established. 
But  this  can  be  no  good  reason  for  exaggerating  its 
amount,  or  failing  to  observe  how  large  a  region  it  leaves 
untouched. 

As  Mohler  showed  in  his  SymboliJc,  it  affects  Chris¬ 
tianity  on  its  human  side.  Bub  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  of  the  redemption  of  the  world  by  an 
Incarnate  Saviour,  solidly  built  up  in  the  earliest  and 
severest  struggles  of  the  Church,  remain  unaffected  by 
it.  Although  the  external  and  historical  provision  for 


420 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


the  reunion  of  individual  souls  to  God  be  disowned,  yet 
Christian  ministry,  rites,  and  discipline  are  upheld,  and 
are  so  exercised  as  to  result  on  a  very  large  scale  in  the 
formation  of  a  true  life  of  faith  and  love.  The  existence 
of  this  system,  the  largeness  of  its  scale,  its  resolute 
activity,  and  the  signs  of  solidity  and  durability  which 
it  exhibits,  have  given  it  a  place  among  those  cardinal 
facts  of  Christian  and  world-wide  history  which  must, 
as  one  would  suppose,  strike  the  eye  of  the  dullest  among 
observers. 

We  have  it,  then,  as  a  fixed  and  undeniable  fact  that, 
among  Christians  unanimity  prevails  with  regard  to  the 
great  central  facts  of  the  Divine  Revelation,  and  that 
the  controversies  among  them,  however  important  and 
distressing,  lie  upon  a  less  exalted  plane.  In  the  face, 
then,  of  the  assailants  of  religion,  there  is  a  broad  ground 
to  occupy.  But  it  does  not  cover  the  entire  field  of 
battle ;  and  as  the  divisions  of  the  Christian  Church  are 
its  chief  source  of  weakness  in  the  contest,  must  we  not 
deem  those  happy  who,  without  compromising  truth, 
seek  to  make  that  ground  of  union  wider  still  ?  From 
whence  it  must  follow  that  unhappy  is  the  lot  of  all, 
however  excellent,  whose  policy  and  conduct  goes  to 
narrow  it. 

I  now  turn  to  a  new  and  interesting  line  of  observa¬ 
tion.  It  is  one  and  not  the  least  salient  point  of 
religious  history  for  the  nineteenth  century,  that  it  has 
been  distinguished,  in  a  degree  never  before  known, 
by  henotic  or  unifying  tendencies,  and  that  these  ten¬ 
dencies  have  manifested  themselves  among  many  of  the 
religious  bodies  whom  the  convulsions  of  the  sixteenth 
century  left  in  a  state  of  severance  from  the  Roman 
obedience  and  from  the  larger  portion  of  the  West. 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


421 


Chief  among  these  manifestations,  undoubtedly,  is  that 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Oxford  movement.  It  has 
altered  in  an  important  manner  the  whole  exterior  face 
of  religion  in  this  country.  It  has  reimpressed  upon  the 
clerical  character  a  stamp  which  had  been  very  largely 
effaced.  Even  doctrinal  truths  have  been  brought  back 
by  it  into  brighter  and  clearer  consciousness.  It  is 
legible  and  palpable,  not  in  Great  Britain  alone,  but  in 
the  United  States,  and  in  our  groups  of  colonies,  from 
their  magnitude  almost  continental,  throughout  the 
world.  What  is,  perhaps,  even  more  singular  is  that 
the  same  pulsations,  which  have  throbbed  under  the 
congenial  shelter  afforded  by  the  ancient  Apostolical 
framework  of  the  Anglican  communion,  have  also  been 
felt  among  our  Presbyterian  and  Nonconforming 
brethren  in  regard  both  to  doctrine  and  to  ritual.  These 
changes  have  been  in  part,  but  by  no  means  wholly, 
external.  They  have  been  wholly  in  an  affirmative 
direction  ;  and,  so  far  as  they  have  gone,  they  have  held 
out,  even  to  Christendom  at  large,  a  right  hand  of  peace 
and  friendship.  But  this,  be  it  observed,  all  proceeds 
from  the  English-speaking  race,  which  is  multiplying 
upon  the  earth  with  such  rapidity ;  and  even  from  some 
portions  of  that  race  which  might  have  been  expected  to 
move,  not  in  the  direction  of  unity,  but  of  widened  and 
embittered  schism. 

Let  us  halt,  then,  for  a  moment,  to  take  the  measure 
of  the  situation.  There  is  a  great  battle  raging  between 
belief  and  unbelief,  the  greatest  of  all  issues  for  the 
interest  of  mankind.  Believers,  though  divided  among 
themselves  on  points  of  grave  importance,  have  yet  by 
the  loving  providence  of  God  been  kept  at  one  upon  those 
points  which  seem  the  most  important,  because  they  lie 


422 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


nearest  the  centre.  There  is  thus  established  a  common 
interest  of  vital  and  paramount  weight  which  pervades 
this  whole  Christian  host.  Approximations  have  been 
made  among  very  large  sections  of  Western  Christendom, 
towards  the  older  or  unreformed  communions.  Beyond 
all  doubt,  these  approximations  have  been  met,  among 
the  old  and  truly  venerable  Oriental  Churches,  with  a 
generous  and  sisterly  feeling,  exhibited  in  a  multitude 
of  secondary  though  significant  forms,  of  which  alone  the 
situation  as  yet  admits.  But  it  is  more  material  to 
inquire  what,  in  these  interesting  and  surely  promising 
circumstances,  the  Latin  Church  has  been  about.  It  is 
with  her  that,  for  good  or  for  evil,  we  are  most  con¬ 
cerned,  as  she  is  the  largest,  the  most  active,  and 
(above  all)  geographically  the  nearest  of  them  all. 

We  had  a  title  to  expect  much  from  her  on  these 
grounds  :  for,  as  she  claims  an  universal  maternity,  it 
may  well  be  supposed  that  there  must  escape  from  her, 
from  time  to  time,  some  tokens  of  a  mother’s  love. 

I  begin  with  a  matter  comparatively  small.  In  all 
the  bulls,  briefs,  encyclicals,  and  other  multifarious 
products  of  Papal  thought  during  the  bygone  generation 
I  have  never  noticed  one  kindly  syllable  of  appreciation 
of  these  approximations.  Glorification  of  the  Roman 
See  and  its  prerogatives,  touching  complaints  of  the 
blindness  and  deadness  of  mankind  to  its  attractions, 
assurances  of  the  gushing  tenderness  with  which  each 
successive  Pontiff  yearns  for  the  day  when  we  are  to 
prostrate  ourselves  at  his  feet,  all  these,  of  course, 
untainted  by  the  smallest  admission  of  any  error  or  short¬ 
coming  on  the  side  of  Rome  itself,  we  have  had  in  abund¬ 
ance  ;  but  of  appreciation,  which  need  not  be  the  less  kindly 
because  justly  guarded,  of  this  I  have  seen  never  a  word. 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


423 


In  the  absence  of  such  efforts  as  might  have  been 
cheaply  made  by  the  Roman  Church  through  the  verbal 
medium,  we  have  the  less  cause  to  wonder  that  no  effort 
has  been  made,  synodically  or  by  the  authority  of  the 
Court  of  Rome  itself,  to  soften  any  of  the  difficulties 
raised  in  our  minds  by  tenets  or  usages  of  the  papal 
churches,  through  those  kindly  mitigating  explanations 
which,  even  if  they  fall  short  of  being  effectual,  yet  have 
a  true  value  of  their  own  as  indications  of  a  pacific 
spirit.  For  such  indications  always  have  a  tendency  to 
beget  their  like,  and  may,  without  offering  ripe  results, 
carry  in  them  the  seed  and  harbinger  of  future  good. 
Not  an  atom  of  effort  in  this  direction,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  has  the  nineteenth  century  produced. 

Barren  as  have  been  our  results  thus  far,  there  seems 
to  remain  behind  one  expectation  on  which  we  might 
rather  confidently  have  relied.  We  might  have  argued 
thus  :  Ever  since  the  Council  of  Trent  and  the  Catechism 
it  produced,  the  Popes,  if  they  have  done  nothing  to 
narrow  the  range  of  our  controversies,  at  least  have  for 
a  long  time  done  nothing  to  widen  it.  If  the  positive 
efforts  of  the  Roman  See  towards  Christian  unity  have 
been  null,  if  the  contributions  of  Roman  Catholic  writers 
to  our  defence  against  unbelievers  have  been  meagre,  at 
least  they  have  abstained  from  all  attempts  to  tamper 
with  the  Christian  faith,  and  aggravate  existing  diffi¬ 
culties  by  laying  down  new  utterances  in  controverted 
matter  of  a  nature  largely  to  exasperate  our  existing 
differences,  and  abate  the  hopes  of  every  lover  of  peace. 

Amiable  and  kindly,  but  accessible  almost  beyond 
example  to  flattery,  Pius  IX.  leaves  behind  him  painful 
recollections  alike  in  the  temporal  and  in  the  spiritual 
sphere.  A  large  contributor  to  the  revolutionary 


424 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


movement  of  1848,  he  passed  the  bulk  of  his  long  pontifi¬ 
cate  as  a  leading  reactionist.  He  offered  to  the  extreme 
party  in  the  Curia  an  opportunity  it  was  sure  not  to 
neglect.  In  1854  a  pilot  balloon  was  sent  up  in  the 
shape  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin.  As  this  did  not  seem  gravely  to  ruffle  the 
surface,  it  was  followed  in  1870  by  the  portentous 
Council  of  the  V atican ;  which  alienated  from  the  Homan 
Church  many  of  its  most  able,  learned,  and  loyal  sup¬ 
porters,  and  stirred  the  indignation  even  of  such  a  man 
as  Newman,  though  he  believed  in  the  Papal  infallibility. 
The  decree  itself  was  indeed  couched  in  terms  which, 
from  different  points  of  view,  might  be  held  to  render  it 
either  innocent  or  senseless ;  for  no  man  alive  knows 
what  are  the  conditions  necessary  to  make  an  ex 
cathedra  declaration,  or  how  many  and  what  such 
declarations  exist,  or  even  whether  such  a  curiosity  is  to 
be  found  in  the  whole  range  of  Church  hisbory.  But  it 
is  not  so  with  the  twin  declaration  of  the  Council, 
which  lays  it  down  that  the  Pope  is  never  to  be  resisted 
in  any  matter,  by  any  persons,  or  under  any  circum¬ 
stance  ;  and  thus  reduces  the  whole  Latin  Church,  nearly 
a  moiety  of  Christendom,  to  an  ignominious  servitude. 

Such  is  the  principal  contribution  which,  amidst  the 
tempest  of  unbelief,  and  with  every  motive  of  duty 
and  policy  recommending  conciliation  or  abstention,  the 
great  Latin  Church  of  our  time  has  offered  to  the  con¬ 
cord  and  union  of  Christendom. 

The  recent  declaration  of  the  Patriarch  and  Church 
of  Constantinople  has  shown  how  fearfully  the  Council 
of  1870  has  widened  the  rent  between  Eastern  and 
Western  Christendom.  As  for  the  Protestants  of  the 
'Continent,  and  the  great  and  growing  Churches  of  the 


SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 


425 


English-speaking  race,  it  is,  I  fear,  obvious  that,  even  hacl 
all  the  old  controversies  of  the  sixteenth  century  been 
adjusted,  the  Vatican  Council  supplies,  for  us  as  well  as 
for  the  East,  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  the  unity  of 
Christendom.  It  is  only  with  a  bleeding  heart  that 
such  words  can  be  written  ;  but  surely  we  cannot,  in 
the  face  of  Scripture,  history,  and  reason,  give  over  the 
determination  of  our  faith  to  the  successor  of  Liberius, 
of  Vigilius,  and  of  Honorius. 

There  remained,  however,  in  the  minds  of  some  a  hope 
that,  with  the  demise  of  Pius  IX.  a  new  era  might 
begin  ;  that  perhaps  modes  might  be  devised  for  retriev¬ 
ing  some  of  his  miscarriages  ;  that,  at  the  very  least,  no 
new  one  would  be  added  to  the  list.  And  now  has 
come  this  damnatory  Bull  against  English  orders,  a 
telum  imbelle  sine  ietu  as  to  its  effect,  but  only  too  clear 
in  its  meaning,  and  breathing  in  every  line  the  sentiment, 
“  All  ye  who  covet  union,  look  for  it  anywhere  except  to 
Rome.”  And  so  by  an  authentic  act  the  Pontificate  of 
Leo  XIII.  takes  its  place  with  that  of  Pius  in  the  list 
of  reactionary  Pontificates. 

Yes,  “  in  every  line,”  including  those  lines  in  which 
the  Pope  assures  us  of  the  unbounded  tenderness  of  his 
heart,  and  the  intensity  of  that  yearning  with  which  he 
longs  once  more  to  number  us  among  the  sheep  within 
his  fold.  As  it  is  impossible  to  suspect  so  good  a  man 
of  speaking  an  untruth,  we  are  compelled  to  believe  that 
he  thinks  there  is  some  value,  some  healing  efficacy,  in 
these  declarations.  They  tempt  us  to  suppose  that,  in 
his  loftiness  and  pride  of  place,  he  cherishes  a  profound 
contempt  for  our  understandings.  We  do  not  consider 
that  deeds  of  hostility  are  countervailed  by  words  of 
beneficence,  or  a  common  assault  by  a  compliment.  The 


426  SOLILOQUIUM  AND  POSTSCRIPT. 

barriers  he  would  have  us  surmount  are  indeed  many. 
At  present  it  may  be  enough  to  say  we  cannot  be 
content  with  mutilated  sacraments,  with  an  imprisoned 
Bible,*  with  Aristotelian  metaphysics  exalted  into 
definitions  of  faith,  with  the  transfer  to  any  human 
tribunal  of  an  allegiance  due  to  God  alone.  These  Papal 
utterances,  their  sincerity  notwithstanding,  are  for  us 
(so  far  as  I  know)  no  siren  songs  ;  they  are  charged 
with  an  ineffable  emptiness,  and  pass  by  us  like  the  idle 
wind. 

But  let  me  not  conclude  in  terms  of  controversy.  We 
are  all  bound  as  Christians  to  desire  the  well-being  of 
Christendom ;  and  herein  not  least  of  the  great  Latin 
Church.  Little  as  this  reATiew  may  tend  to  inspire 
sanguine  expectations,  let  us  heartily  desire  and  pray 
that  she  and  we  alike  may  fail  wherever  we  are  at 
fault,  but  that  in  every  good  design  and  effort,  she  may 
prosper  to  her  heart’s  content. 

Chateau  Thorenc,  Cannes, 

March  26,  1897. 


*  Those  who  may  deem  this  expression  harsh  should  read  the  recently 
published  articles  by  Dr.  Wright  on  the  melancholy  experience  of 
M.  Lasserre  in  connection  with  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
into  French. 


LONDON  :  PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,  LIMITED, 
STAMFORD  STREET  AND  CHARING  CROSS. 


CONTENTS 


OF 

GLEANINGS  OF  PAST  YEARS, 

1843-79. 

Raving  double  title-pages  (1)  as  a  series ,  and  (2)  as  separate  works 
By  THE  RIGHT  HON.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE,  M.P. 

VOL.  I.— THE  THRONE  AND  THE  PRINCE  CONSORT 
THE  CABINET  AND  CONSTITUTION. 

Death  of  Prince  Consort. 

Court  of  Queen  Victoria. 

Life  of  the  Prince  Consort. 

The  County  Franchise  and  Mr.  Lowe. 

Kin  beyond  Sea. 

VOL.  II. — 'PERSONAL  AND  LITERARY. 

Blanco  White. 

Giacomo  Leopardi. 

Tennyson. 

Wedgwood. 

Bishop  Patteson. 

Macaulay. 

Norman  Macleod. 

VOL.  III.— HISTORICAL  AND  SPECULATIVE. 

Scottish  Church  Establishment. 

Ecce  Homo. 

Courses  of  Religious  Thought. 

Authority  in  Matters  of  Opinion. 

The  16  th  Century  arraigned  before  the  19th. 


VOL.  1Y.— FOREIGN. 

The  Neapolitan  Government,  1851. 

The  States  ol  the  Church. 

Germany,  France  and  England,  1870. 

The  Hellenic  Factor  in  the  Eastern  Problem 
Montenegro. 

Egypt,  and  Freedom  in  the  East. 

YOL.  V.— ECCLESIASTICAL.  (I.) 

Present  Aspect  of  the  Church,  1843. 

Ward’s  Ideal  of  a  Christian  Church. 

The  Royal  Supremacy. 

VOL.  VI.— ECCLESIASTICAL.  (II.) 

Functions  of  Laymen  in  the  Church. 

Bill  for  Divorce. 

Ritual  and  Ritualism. 

Is  the  Church  of  England  worth  Preserving? 
Italy  and  her  Church. 

rOL.  VII.— MISCELLANEOUS. 

The  work  of  the  University. 

Place  of  Ancient  Greece  in  the  Providential 
Order. 

A  Chapter  of  Autobiography. 

Law  of  Probable  Evidence  in  its  Application 
to  Conduct. 

The  Evangelical  Movement. 


This  Series  is  Continued  in 

LATER  GLEANINGS 

Ecclesiastical  and  Theological 


1 


Princeton 


heological  Seminary  Libraries 


012  01245  441 


1 


